Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-05-2021; 6-a - Presentation of Final Report from the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG) 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 5, 2021 Action Agenda Item No. 6-a SUBJECT: Presentation of Final Report from the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG) DEPARTMENT: County Attorney & County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Presentation Greg Wilder, Manager's Office, 245-2300 BEAG Final Report on the Process for John Roberts, County Attorney, 245- Electing County Commissioners in 2318 Orange County Brian Carson, Planning & Inspections, 245-2595 Todd McGee, Community Relations, 245- 2302 Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan, BEAG Facilitator PURPOSE: To receive the Final Report on the Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County from the BOCC Elections Advisory Group and provide direction on next steps. BACKGROUND: At the Board of Commissioners' April 7, 2020 Virtual Business meeting, a request/petition was presented that the Board discuss and potentially change a portion of the process under which some or all Board members are elected. The Board subsequently discussed the issue at its May 5, 2020 Virtual Business meeting and voted to: 1) Establish a committee to study alternative methods of election; 2) Select members for the committee no later than January 31, 2021; 3) Have the committee review options and report back by July 31, 2021; and 4) For the Board to review the recommendations, and if necessary conduct public hearings and make a decision in time for the March 2022 primary election. The Board subsequently discussed the proposal further at its September 10, 2020 work session. Staff requested direction from the Board on: • the total number of members the committee should include; • whether the committee should consist entirely of residents; • whether election or other experts would be considered/appointed; • whether there should be representation from nonprofit entities; • whether there would be a formal application process; and • any other details regarding the establishment of the committee. 2 Based on direction given at that meeting, the Clerk's Office solicited applications from Orange County residents for fifteen (15) seats for the BOCC Elections Advisory Group, with appointments to be made by January 31, 2021. The Group materials noted that the purpose is to "study alternative methods/districts to elect the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners." Staff advertised the application opportunity on the County website and also published two Public Service Announcements regarding the Group. The opportunity to apply to serve was shared on WCHL radio station. An announcement also occurred at the Board's October 20, 2020 Business meeting that the County was recruiting for potential appointees to the BOCC Elections Advisory Group and that applications were available on the County Website under Board of Commissioners - Volunteer Advisory Boards & Commissions. The County received applications from twenty-three (23) interested individuals. At its February 2, 2021 Business meeting, the Board of Commissioners appointed fifteen (15) members to the BOCC Elections Advisory Group. The Board directed the Group to select Co- Chairs, with one individual from the District 1 electoral area of the County and one individual from the District 2 electoral area of the County. The Board also approved a charge and timeline for the Group, with the Group to provide its report back to the BOCC by July 31, 2021. The BEAG subsequently convened seven times, with its first meeting on February 25, 2021. Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan joined the Group as its Facilitator at the Group's second meeting on March 25, 2021. At that same meeting, Group Members Lisa Hazirjian and Patrick Mulkey were elected as the Group Co-Chairs from Districts 1 and 2, respectively. In concert with the BOCC's May 18, 2021 agreement by consensus to extend the BEAG's report deadline to August 15, 2021, the BEAG approved its Final Report on the Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County at its last meeting on August 5, 2021. That Final Report, which is attached, details the Group's activities, discussions and materials reviewed, and provides recommendations for BOCC consideration. BEAG Facilitator and Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan will be joined at the meeting by Group Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian and Group Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey to present the Final Report to the Board. Other Group members may also be present to help address any questions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact to date relates to the contract with Judge Bryan as the Facilitator for Group meetings and associated administrative and planning activities. Future financial impacts will be based on the next steps in the Board's consideration of this matter. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated with receiving the Final Report on the Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County. There may be potential future impacts based on the next steps in the Board's consideration of this matter. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impact associated with receiving the Final Report on the Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County. 3 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1) express its appreciation to the members of the BOCC Election Advisory Group and Judge Bryan for their work; 2) receive the Final Report on the Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County from the BOCC Elections Advisory Group; 3) provide any comments or questions to Judge Bryan, Group Co-Chair Hazirjian, and Group Co-Chair Mulkey; 4) conclude the BOCC Elections Advisory Group's activities and sunset the Group as an appointed County board; and 5) provide any direction to staff on next steps. 4 BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County FINAL REPORT Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners October 5, 2021 1 5 Members of the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BERG) were appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners in February 2021 based on submitted applications. The BEAG membership reflects geographic, ethnic, racial and political diversity from across Orange County. GROUP MEMBERS Patrick Mulkey — District 2, Co-Chair Dr. Lisa Hazirjian — District 1 , Co-Chair District 1 District 2 Kathy Arab Brian Crawford Nicholas Batman Martha Jenkins (resigned as of May, 2021 ) Alicia Reid Dr. Nathan Boucher Jenn Sykes Dr. Jennifer Bremer Rex Williams Jaazaniah Catterall Susana Dancy Dr. Krishna Mondal Dr. Jonathan Weiler z 6 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Char e To review, research, and evaluate the current method of electing commissioners, as well as any alternative electoral methods or models, including but not limited to single member districts, aligning primary and general election methods, multi-seat elections, and the number of commissioners. The Advisory Group shall assess all options and alternatives pursuant to the following criteria: ➢ Constitutional and statutory requirements and voting rights law; ➢ Proportionality ➢ Equity ➢ Uniformity ➢ Simplicity/clarity ➢ Maximizing voter engagement The Advisory Group's assessment should incorporate, to the extent possible, anticipated population distribution changes based on the 2020 census. The Advisory Group may consider options that require enabling legislation; however, it must present to the BOCC options that do not require such authorization. 3 7 CURRENT VOTING METHOD FOR ELECTING MEMBERS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Currently Orange County elects seven (7) commissioners. Two commissioners are elected at-large, meaning candidates must reside somewhere in Orange County, and voters from the entire county vote on these candidates in both primaries and general elections. There are two multi-member districts. District 1 encompasses the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area and has three seats. District 2 includes the rest of Orange County and has two seats. Candidates for these seats must reside in the district in which they are running. In primaries, voters living in District One vote only on District One candidates, and voters from District Two vote only on District Two candidates. In general elections, voters from the whole county can vote in both District One and District Two races. 4 8 Election Methods for County Commissioners Authorized by North Carolina General Statute • Single-member districts where voters in a district choose one representative for their district. • Multi-member districts where voters in a district choose multiple representatives for their district. • At-large seats voted on by all voters in the county. • A combination of single-member districts and at-large. • A combination of multi-member districts and at-large. 5 9 RESOURCES AND INFORMATION REVIEWED • Presentation and information from Professor Robert Joyce and the UNC School of Government regarding legal options used in other counties and the legal options available to Orange County; • Presentation and information slides from Director Dr. Rebecca Tippett and the UNC Demography Center on demographic features of Orange County; • Demographic information related to the urban and rural populations, and changes since the 2010 Census; • Information on areas currently experiencing growth, or areas expected to experience growth (an example being the Mebane/Efland area); • Information on recently approved and proposed large residential developments in the County; • Demographic information on the two county school systems, and county funding levels for each district (Note: the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools have additional funding based on a voter approved tax surcharge that is dedicated to the schools assessed on the residents of the school district.); • Population information for Orange County broken down by precinct; • Current method for electing members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners • Election results from 2000 through 2020 from the North Carolina Board of Elections and Orange County Board of Elections for seats on the Orange County Board of Commissioners; • Information from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) on election methods for all 100 North Carolina counties; • www.faircountiesnc.org • http://www.ncacc.org/197/Election-Results — Compiled by NCACC — Provides county-by-county elections demographics (race, gender, and political party) for boards of commissioners for North Carolina's 100 counties; • Public Input Survey implemented by the BEAG. 6 10 PUBLIC INPUT SURVEY The BERG developed a 16-question Public Input Survey to solicit feedback from the general public regarding the election of county commissioners in Orange County. There were 413 completed surveys submitted in the two-week response period. Some of the aggregates from Survey responses were as follows: Demographic Responses • 89.3% of respondents said they always vote • 16.46% said their voices were often heard, 37.29% said sometimes, 28.5% said rarely and 17.68% said their voices were never heard • 35.53% said they arrived at the polls surprised at who they were voting for; 64.4% were not surprised . Race/Ethnicity of respondents: 69.76% white, 3.98% African American, 2.92% Hispanic, 2. 12% multi-racial, 2. 12% Asian and 1 .59% another race. 17.51 % preferred not to answer. 11 Election Method Responses • 23.95% said they were satisfied with the current election method, 41 .05% said they were not satisfied and 35% were unsure • 30.79% preferred single member districts; 18.95% preferred a combination of single member districts and at-large seats; 15.26% preferred a combination of multi-member districts and at-large seats; 14.47% preferred multi-member districts with no at-large seats; and 10.79% preferred all at- large seats. • 80.37% said they thought only people living in a district should vote for that district's commissioner s 12 BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS/FINDINGS 1 ) The current system of mixing multiple representatives and at-large districts, where people vote in the primaries in the districts, and the whole county votes for district representation in the general election, is unsatisfactory and not acceptable based on the Group's research , SurveyMonkey responses, and experiences of members as voters and precinct chairs. 9 13 2) The BERG recommends seven single member residency districts where candidates living in the district are voted on in both the primary and general election by only the voters in the respective districts (True Election District). One member voted against this option , believing that the county could benefit from some at-large districts. 10 14 3) The BEAG strongly recommends that the Board of Commissioners establish a multi-partisan/non-partisan independent advisory group and process in order to create the seven single member districts. The BEAG recommends that the criteria outlined in the Charge (Constitutionality, statutory requirements, voting rights law, proportionality, equity, uniformity, simplicity/clarity and maximizing voter engagement) be paramount in drawing districts. In addition , the drawing of districts should keep communities of interest intact (geographic, socio-economic and racial-ethnic) and avoid splitting precincts. �1 15 4) The BEAG recommends that the BOCC hold a series of public meetings and listening sessions to allow public input, and that the BOCC act in time to allow for a public referendum in 2022. 12 16 THANK YOU QUESTIONS ?. ?. ?m 17 BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County FINAL REPORT August 2021 GROUP MEMBERS Patrick Mulkey—District 2, Co-Chair Dr. Lisa Hazirjian—District 1, Co-Chair District 1 District 2 Kathy Arab Brian Crawford Nicholas Batman Martha Jenkins (resigned as of May, 2021) Alicia Reid Dr. Nathan Boucher Jenn Sykes Dr. Jennifer Bremer Rex Williams Jaazaniah Catterall Susana Dancy Dr. Krishna Mondal Dr. Jonathan Weiler STAFF Greg Wilder, Orange County Todd McGee, Orange County Manager's Office Community Relations Director Brian Carson, GIS Technician IIl, John Roberts, Orange County Orange County Planning & Attorney Inspections Department Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners FACILITATOR The Honorable James T. Bryan III 1 18 REPORT SUMMARY In February 2021, the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) appointed fifteen (15) individuals to serve on the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG). The BEAG's Charge included reviewing, researching, and evaluating the current method of electing commissioners, as well as any alternative electoral methods or models, including but not limited to single member districts, aligning primary and general election methods, multi-seat elections, and the number of commissioners. The Group met over the past six months with the assistance of a facilitator, Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan. During that period, the Group reviewed information regarding Orange County demographics, urban and rural population, changes since the 2010 Census, areas experiencing or expected to experience significant population growth, presentations by Dr. Rebecca Tippett with the UNC Population Center and Professor Robert Joyce with the UNC School of Government,population information broken down by precinct, and recently-approved and proposed large/planned developments in the County. The Group discussed the strengths and concerns regarding the current method of electing members of the Board of Commissioners. The Group also conducted a survey soliciting public input on the current method as well as potential alternative methods for electing members of the Board of Commissioners. Following review and discussion of the information gathered as well as the results from the public survey, Group members determined the following recommendations: • The current system of mixing multiple representative and at-large districts, where people vote in the primaries in districts, and the whole county votes in the general election, is unsatisfactory and not acceptable; • The recommended method is seven single member residency districts requiring that candidates living in a district would be voted on in the primary and general election by voters living in the district only; • A multi-partisan, independent advisory group and process should be formed by the Board of Commissioners to create the seven single member districts based on the criteria in the Board of Commissioners' Charge and to make every effort to keep communities of interest together and avoid splitting precincts; • The Board of Commissioners should hold a series of public hearings and listening sessions to allow public input in advance of a public referendum on any proposed election plan/method. 2 19 BACKGROUND At its Business meeting on April 7, 2020, the Orange County Board of Commissioners received a petition requesting the Board to analyze the current method of electing county commissioners and to potentially change that method. The Board subsequently voted to establish a committee to study the issue. Discussion of the makeup of this committee centered around ways to make sure such a committee represented a variety of stakeholders (such as election officials, non-profit groups and other experts) and that represented the diversity of Orange County voters (geographically and demographically). Beginning in October 2020, the BOCC began taking applications from Orange County residents who were interested in serving on the committee. Announcements about the application process were made at the BOCC meeting that month, as well as on the Orange County website and WCHL radio. The County received a total of 23 applications from interested individuals. On February 2, 2021, the BOCC appointed 15 individuals to the committee, nine members from District 1 and six members from District 2. The group was named the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG). The BOCC instructed the BEAG to elect two co-chairs from its membership — one from District 1 and one from District 2. CURRENT VOTING METHOD Currently Orange County elects seven (7) commissioners. Two commissioners are elected at-large, meaning candidates must reside somewhere in Orange County, and voters from the entire county vote on these candidates in both primaries and general elections. There are two multi-member districts. District 1 encompasses the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area and has three seats. District 2 includes the rest of Orange County and has two seats. Candidates for these seats must reside in the district in which they are running. In primaries, voters living in District One vote only on District One candidates, and voters from District Two vote only on District Two candidates. In general elections, voters from the whole county can vote in both District One and District Two races. CHARGE GIVEN To review, research, and evaluate the current method of electing commissioners, as well as any alternative electoral methods or models, including but not limited to 3 20 single member districts, aligning primary and general election methods, multi-seat elections and the number of commissioners. The Advisory Group shall assess all options and alternatives pursuant to the following criteria: • Constitutional and statutory requirements and voting rights laws • Proportionality • Equity • Uniformity • Simplicity/clarity • Maximizing voter engagement The Advisory Group's assessment should incorporate, to the extent possible, anticipated population distribution changes based on the 2020 Census. The Advisory Group may consider options that require enabling legislation; however, it must present to the BOCC options that do not require authorization. (See Appendix A.) BEAG MEETINGS The BEAG met seven times, on February 25, 2021, March 25, 2021, April 22, 2021, May 27, 2021, June 24, 2021, July 22, 2021, and August 5, 2021. All of the meetings were virtual. (See Appendices B and C for agendas and summaries.) Members of the public were invited to view the meetings and were given a link where they could join, which was different from the meeting link provided to the members of the BEAG. Members of the public who had questions or comments could send them to Greg Wilder in the Orange County Manager's Office, and Mr. Wilder shared them with the members of the Group. See below for the conversation and decisions made at each meeting. The BOCC initially set a deadline of July 31, 2021 for the Group's Final Recommendations. February 25, 2021 Meeting The members of the BEAG voted to use a professional facilitator to manage the Group's meetings. The Group also determined that anyone interested in being one of the co-chairs should provide a written statement expressing interest to the rest of the Group, stating the reasons for his/her interest in the position. The Group in discussion expressed the desire to receive the following specific information: 4 21 • Demographic information related to the urban and rural populations, and changes since the 2010 Census; • Information on areas currently experiencing growth, or areas expected to experience growth (an example being the Mebane/Efland area); • Demographic information on the two county school systems, and county funding levels for each district (Note: the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools have additional funding based on a voter approved tax surcharge that is dedicated to the schools assessed on the residents of the school district.); • Information on additional demographic features of the county provided by the UNC Demography Center and its director Dr. Rebecca Tippett (see Appendix D); • The legal options used in other counties and the legal options available to Orange County from UNC School of Government and Professor Robert Joyce (see Appendix E); • Online sources referenced by Group Member Dr. Jennifer Bremer (see Appendix F); • Population information broken down by precinct; • Information on recently approved and proposed large residential developments in the County; • Other sources (see Appendix F). March 25, 2021 Meeting Judge James T. Bryan III was engaged by Orange County to facilitate the BEAG meetings, and he led the remaining meetings. The BEAG discussed voting methods for the Group itself and determined that it would require a supermajority on major decision items. The discussion was extensive and the Group voted to require that approval of major motions required at least sixty (60) percent of Group members present at the meeting including at least two members from District 1 and at least two members from District 2 voting in support of the motion. The Group thought strongly that the decisions made should be representative of both districts and the Group as a whole. (See Appendices G and H.) Co-chairs were elected and their roles and responsibilities were approved. (See Appendix I). 5 22 April 22, 2021 Meeting The BEAG used this meeting to hear from outside presenters. Dr. Rebecca Tippett reported on the county's demographics. Dr. Tippett pointed out that it would be at least September before any information would be available in Census blocks from the 2020 Census, but she was able to give the Group a sense of where the growth would be based on mid-decade figures and estimates. Professor Robert Joyce presented an overview of the methods used in other North Carolina counties with the numbers of counties using each method. Todd McGee, Orange County Community Relations Director, gave a presentation on the methods that could be used in surveying public opinion on the methods of electing county commissioners. The BEAG appointed a Public Input Subcommittee to develop a survey that would invite public opinion. May 27, 2021 Meeting Prior to the meeting, the BOCC extended the deadline for the BEAG report to August 15, 2021. The Public Input Subcommittee presented proposed survey questions. Each question was analyzed by the Group with help from Todd McGee. Following discussion of each survey question, amendments were suggested and some were incorporated into the questions. Each question, after analysis and changes were made, was unanimously approved by the BEAG. (See Appendix J). Members of the Group discussed ways of circulating the survey to get the best possible representative sample, noting the inability to confirm only one response submitted per person. Mr. McGee was charged with issuing a news release about the survey, posting it on the Orange County website for two weeks and compiling the results for analysis by the BEAG. Before adjournment, the BEAG also voted to entertain comments from the public related to future work or discussions. June 24, 2021 Meeting In advance of this meeting, Group members were provided with the survey results so that there would be time to digest them. Group members also were provided with a decision grid to enable them to reach final recommendations. (See Appendices K, L, M, and N.) The survey was available to the public for two weeks. It was publicized on the Orange County social media pages and through various email list serves. It was also sent to WCHL, WHUP, Chapelboro.com, and to municipal partners and community groups to reach underserved communities. 6 23 Based on survey responses, the following results were presented by Todd McGee: • 89.3% of respondents said they always vote • 16.46% said their voices were often heard, 37.29% said sometimes, 28.5% said rarely and 17.68% said their voices were never heard • 23.95% said they were satisfied with the current election method, 41.05% said they were not satisfied and 35% were unsure • 30.79% preferred single member districts; 18.95% preferred a combination of single member districts and at-large seats; 15.26% preferred a combination of multi-member districts and at-large seats; 14.47% preferred multi-member districts with no at-large seats; and 10.79% preferred all at-large seats. • 80.37% said they thought only people living in a district should vote for that district's commissioner • 35.53% said they arrived at the polls surprised at who they were voting for; 64.4% were not surprised • Ethnicity of respondents: 69.76% white, 3.98% African American, 2.92% Hispanic, 2.12% multi-racial, 2.12% Asian and 1.59% another race. 17.51% preferred not to answer. After the presentation of the survey results, BEAG members discussed the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the current system. The current method is complicated and not understood. Parts of the county, particularly rural areas, feel unrepresented. Southern Orange County has most of the population of Orange County, but the at-large voting increases the dominance of Southern Orange. The current method leads to a funding imbalance in the county's communities. There was considerable discussion about the pros and cons of at-large districts with a sentiment among some that commissioners elected at-large would keep the whole county's interest at heart rather than only local interests. The BEAG then discussed the following options legally available for electing county commissioners: • The Current Method Strengths of the current election method were identified as the opportunity for people to vote for representatives in at-large districts and acceptance of the reality that Chapel Hill and Carrboro dominate due to their population. A 24 more detailed summary of what members identified as the positive aspects of the current method appears in the Meeting Summary for June 24tH Concerns included that the method was complicated and not understood, and that parts of the county, particularly rural areas, feel unrepresented. It allows Chapel Hill and Carrboro to dominate voters in other parts of the County in a county-wide vote. Questions 5 and 7 of Appendix L indicated the extent those who responded did not feel heard and were not satisfied with the current method of voting. It was also discussed that the current methods resulted in a funding imbalance between north and south Orange County, and that having fewer, larger districts reduced the ability for people with fewer financial resources to run for office. Questions 8 and 9 of Appendix L were cited as indicating public dissatisfaction with the current election method. • All elections at-large (no districts) Members discussed the benefits and limitations of at-large districts. Those supporting them touted how they would cover future growth by accounting for areas that have gained in population and would be based on representation of people, not land. Commissioners elected at-large would understand the interests of, and be accountable to, the whole county. It can be harder to develop and support county-wide solutions when they compete with the interests of representing a single district. At-large allows a person to vote for more than one commissioner to represent them. Arguing against Chapel Hill and Carrboro being able to capture the bulk of at-large could be viewed as a form of disenfranchisement since Chapel Hill and Carrboro have the bulk of the county population. Also noted was the support by non-white voters for at-large elections and multi-member districts (Question 8, Appendix L). Those not in favor of at-large seats cited the domination of Chapel Hill and Carrboro over the more northern and rural interests of the county, including those living in unincorporated areas. As a result, at-large elections would not increase representation of these areas. The history of using at-large elections to dilute the representation of minority interest groups, and especially racial groups, was also noted. Single member districts can avoid mixing urban and rural more effectively than at-large. 8 25 • Single-members districts —Voters living in a district vote for one commissioner who lives in the same district, in both the primary and general election (True Election Districts). The following combinations of single member districts were proposed— seven, seven to nine, nine, five and two at-large, and seven and two at-large. Those favoring single member districts suggested that such a structure would give voters in different communities in the county more opportunity to vote for someone who would truly represent them. Single member districts would be easier to understand and would avoid confusion over whom voters were voting for. It would allow equal representation of each voter and their perspectives, and campaigning in single member districts would be more affordable than campaigning for a county-wide seat. Representatives would be directly linked to their constituents. The more districts that were allowed, the more areas could be represented. • Blended districts — In the primary, district voters nominate candidates residing in the district but in the general election, all voters in the county elect all commissioners. • Residency districts — Candidates must live within the district; but instead of only voters in the district voting for them, all county voters vote in the primary and general for the district commissioner. The BEAG went back to its Charge, and determined that the best method for proportionality, equity, better representation and maximum voter engagement was the 3rd option (single-member districts). Following discussion of all the options including the method of election and the number of commissioners and districts, the BEAG coalesced on the following recommendations to the BOCC. July 22, 2021 Meeting The BEAG discussed two drafts of a final Report. One draft was selected. After discussion, the BEAG voted to incorporate certain sections from the other report into the selected draft. Minor changes were also made to the Appendices. The BEAG agreed to meet on August 5, 2021 to review the changes it had approved in a final Report. It also recommended to the Board of Commissioners its preference 9 26 that the Board receive a presentation and discuss the report at its September 9, 2021 work session rather than the Board's September 2, 2021 Business meeting. August 5, 2021 Meeting The BEAG made minor edits to the Report and then approved the Report as edited. RECOMMENDATIONS&INDINGS 1) The current system of mixing multiple representatives and at-large districts, where people vote in the primaries in the districts, and the whole county votes for district representation in the general election, is unsatisfactory and not acceptable based on the Group's research, SurveyMonkey responses, and experiences of members as voters and precinct chairs. 2) The BEAG recommends seven single member residency districts where candidates living in the district are voted on in both the primary and general election by only the voters in the respective districts (True Election District). One member voted against this option, believing that the county could benefit from some at-large districts. 3) The BEAG strongly recommends that the Board of Commissioners establish a multi-partisan/non-partisan independent advisory group and process in order to create the seven single member districts. The BEAG recommends that the criteria outlined in the Charge (Constitutionality, statutory requirements, voting rights law, proportionality, equity, uniformity, simplicity/clarity and maximizing voter engagement) be paramount in drawing districts. In addition, the drawing of districts should keep communities of interest intact (geographic, socio-economic and racial- ethnic) and avoid splitting precincts. 4) The BEAG recommends that the BOCC hold a series of public meetings and listening sessions to allow public input, and that the BOCC act in time to allow for a public referendum in 2022. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Although there was some mention of non-partisan elections, ranked choice voting and public financing, the BEAG did not pursue these options, as all would have required action by the North Carolina General Assembly and was outside the Charge from the Board of Commissioners. 10 27 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: BOCC Elections Advisory Group Charge and Timeline APPENDIX B: Agendas for BEAG Meetings (February 25th, March 25th, April 22nd, May 27th, June 24th, July 22nd, and August 5th, 2021) APPENDIX C: Meeting Summaries (February 25th, March 25th, April 22nd, May 27th, June 24th, July 22nd, and August 5th, 2021) APPENDIX D: Slides from Dr. Rebecca Tippett APPENDIX E: Materials from Professor Robert Joyce APPENDIX F: Other Materials and Information requested and reviewed by the BEAG (Note: Election results from 2000 to 2020 for Orange County Board of Commissioners seats were made available to the Group, but were not discussed at any meetings. Those records are not included here, but can be accessed through the Orange County Board of Elections and the North Carolina State Board of Elections). APPENDIX G: Discussion Guidelines for BOCC BEAG APPENDIX H: Decision Guide for BEAG Approval and Disapproval of Actions APPENDIX I: Responsibilities of the BEAG Facilitator and Co-Chairs 11 28 APPENDIX J: Finalized Survey APPENDIX K: Decision Grid for Matching BOCC Criteria to Election Methods APPENDIX L: BEAG Community Survey Results APPENDIX M: SurveyMonkey Data Results APPENDIX N: BEAG Community Comments Survey 12 29 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Charge & Timeline Charge To review, research, and evaluate the current method of electing commissioners, as well as any alternative electoral methods or models, including but not limited to single member districts, aligning primary and general election methods, multi-seat elections, and the number of commissioners. The Advisory Group shall assess all options and alternatives pursuant to the following criteria: ➢ Constitutional and statutory requirements and voting rights law; ➢ Proportionality ➢ Equity ➢ Uniformity ➢ Simplicity/clarity ➢ Maximizing voter engagement The Advisory Group's assessment should incorporate, to the extent possible, anticipated population distribution changes based on the 2020 census. The Advisory Group may consider options that require enabling legislation; however, it must present to the BOCC options that do not require such authorization. Timeline At its May 5, 2020 Virtual Business meeting, the Board of Commissioners voted to have the Group review options and report back by July 31 , 2021 . 30 ORANGE COUNTY BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AGENDA BOCC Elections Advisory Group February 25, 2021 Virtual Meeting—7:00 p.m. Due to current public health concerns, the BOCC Elections Advisory Group is conducting a Virtual Meeting on February 25, 2021. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely. 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Review of the Group Charge and Timeline 3. Review of County's Legal Authority Related to the Election of Members of the Board of Commissioners 4. Potential Desire for Facilitator to Assist Group 5. Potential Establishment of Specific Meeting Date & Time 6. Discussion on and Potential Election of Group Co-Chairs—One from District 1 and One from District 2 7. Other General Organizational Matters 8. Current Framework for the Election of Members of the Board of Commissioners 9. Discussion on Initial Information or Presentation Requests Adjourn BOCC Elections Advisory Group virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register: https:Horan eg countync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_t078hB7eS1G1RtRGpS_IvQ After registering,you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the meeting. If you have any comments or questions, please email Greg Wilder at wig ldergoran ecountync. og_v before 3:00 pm on February 25, 2021. 31 ORANGE COUNTY BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AGENDA BOCC Elections Advisory Group March 25, 2021 Virtual Meeting—7:00 p.m. Due to current public health concerns, the BOCC Elections Advisory Group is conducting a Virtual Meeting on March 25, 2021. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely. 1. Welcome and Introductions—Greg Wilder 2. Discussion on Responsibilities of the Facilitator and Co-Chairs 3. Ground Rules for Group Function& Interaction 4. Discussion on Decision-making Process 5. Discussion on Process to Elect Co-Chairs 6. Approval of February 25, 2021 Meeting Summary 7. Potential Election of Group Co-Chairs—One from District 1 and One from District 2 8. Discussion on Various Information Requests a) Orange County Population Information— 1980 to 2010 b) Estimated Orange County Population Information—2010 to 2020 c) Orange County Precinct/Electoral District/Census Block Mapping d) OCS & CHCCS Schools Information e) Recent and Planned Development Activity f) Election Methods for 100 North Carolina Counties (NCACC) g) Redistricting for Local Governments After the 2000 Census—Robert Joyce, UNC School Government—Popular Government, Spring 2001 h) Other Information 9. Planning/Potential Topics for April 22, 2021 and Future Group Meetings 10. Meeting Evaluation Adjourn The BOCC Elections Advisory Group conducts regular meetings on the 4th Thursday of each month, currently in a virtual format. These virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register: hltps:Horan_ecountync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN aQ2hDFVT72u91JKOd3TOA After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the meeting. If you have any comments or questions, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please email Greg Wilder at gwildergoran eg countync. ov before 3:00 pm on March 25, 2021. 32 ORANGE COUNTY BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AGENDA BOCC Elections Advisory Group April 22, 2021 Virtual Meeting—7:00 p.m. Due to current public health concerns, the BOCC Elections Advisory Group is conducting a Virtual Meeting on April 22, 2021. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely. 7:00—7:05 1. Roll Call for Quorum—Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey 7:05 7:10 2. Approval of March 25, 2021 Meeting Summary 7:10— 7:30 3. Discussion with Robert (Bob) Joyce, UNC School of Government Professor of Public Law and Government 7:30— 7:50 4. Discussion with Rebecca Tippett, Carolina Demography, UNC Population Center 7:50 8:10 5. Discussion with Orange County Community Relations Director Todd McGee 8:10 8:30 6. Identify Strengths and Concerns with Current Framework/Method for Board of Commissioners Elections 8:30— 8:50 7. Determine Action Steps in Preparation for BEAG Final Recommendations -Next Steps for Public Input - Other Steps? - Potential Need for Additional Meetings? Or Changes in Meeting Time 8:50— 8:55 8. Planning for Next Meeting 8:55 — 9:00 9. Meeting Evaluation 9:00 Adjourn The BOCC Elections Advisory Group conducts regular meetings on the 4th Thursday of each month, currently in a virtual format. These virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register: https://oran eg couniync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WNe6iXEOCPvRv2DFZO 6xWOSA After registering,you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the meeting. If you have any comments or questions, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please email Greg Wilder at igvv ldergorangecountync.gov before 3:00 pm on April 22, 2021. 33 ORANGE COUNTY BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AGENDA BOCC Elections Advisory Group May 27, 2021 Virtual Meeting—7:00 p.m. Due to current public health concerns, the BOCC Elections Advisory Group is conducting a Virtual Meeting on May 27, 2021. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely. 7:00 7:05 1. Roll Call for Quorum—Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian 7:05 — 7:10 2. Approval of April 22, 2021 Meeting Summary 7:10 7:25 3. Receipt of Report/Recommendations from Public Input Subcommittee • DRAFT Subcommittee SurveyMonkey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XZHDPS7 7:25 — 8:15 4. Discuss and Finalize Plans Regarding Public Input • Discuss Survey Content, Propose Any Revisions, and Vote on Final Version • Discuss &Approve Plans to Generate Survey Responses • Discuss &Vote on Additional Methods of Gathering Public Input (e.g., Holding a Public Hearing, Inviting Written and/or Recorded Public Input, etc.) 8:15 8:35 5. Identify Remaining Tasks to be Completed by Group • What Decision Points/Questions Need to be Answered Before a Report on Group Recommendations is Drafted? 8:35 — 8:55 6. Set a Timeline for Completing These Tasks • Does the Group Need Any Additional Meeting(s)? 8:55 —9:00 7. Meeting Evaluation 9:00 Adjourn The BOCC Elections Advisory Group conducts regular meetings on the 4th Thursday of each month, currently in a virtual format. These virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register: https:Horan-e�tyne.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_g l dwY5DHRFybDHF02BaOUw After registering,you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the meeting. If you have any comments or questions, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please email Greg Wilder at wig�iderkoran eg coun . nc.gov before 3:00 pm on May 27, 2021. 34 ORANGE COUNTY BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AGENDA BOCC Elections Advisory Group June 24, 2021 Virtual Meeting—7:00 p.m. Due to current public health concerns, the BOCC Elections Advisory Group is conducting a Virtual Meeting on June 24, 2021. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely. 7:00 7:05 1. Roll Call for Quorum—Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey 7:05 — 7:10 2. Approval of May 27, 2021 Meeting Summary 7:10 7:15 3. Review of Any Written Comments Received 7:15 —7:35 4. Review and Discussion of SurveyMonkey Results 7:35 8:40 5. Review of Preliminary Perspectives Submitted by Individual Group Members and Development of Draft Scenarios for Group Consideration (Potential Three Minute Limit Per Speaker) 8:40 9:10 6. Discussion on Finalizing Recommendations 9:10—9:15 7. Potential Need for Any Additional Meeting(s) 8. Adjourn The BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG) conducts regular meetings on the 4th Thursday of each month, currently in a virtual format. These virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register: https:Horan eg countync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN 07b7wgGsQ7OoZT fg1HN8g After registering, you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to the BEAG, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please email Greg Wilder atwilder(c�r�,oran ecountync.g_ov before 3:00 pm on June 24, 2021. 35 ORANGE COUNTY BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AGENDA BOCC Elections Advisory Group July 22, 2021 Virtual Meeting—7:00 p.m. Due to current public health concerns, the BOCC Elections Advisory Group is conducting a Virtual Meeting on July 22, 2021. Members of the Group will be participating in the meeting remotely. 7:00 7:05 1. Roll Call for Quorum—Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian 7:05 — 7:10 2. Approval of June 24, 2021 Meeting Summary 7:10 7:15 3. Review of Any Written Comments Received 7:15 —7:35 4. Discussion on Draft Report 7:35 8:05 5. Approval of Specific Revisions to the Draft Report 8:05 — 8:20 6. Discussion on Final Approval of the Report 8:20— 8:30 7. Potential Need for Any Additional Follow-up or Meeting Based on Report Status/Revisions 8:30— 8:40 8. Plan for Report Presentation to Board of Commissioners 8:40 9. Adjourn The BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG) conducts regular meetings on the 4th Thursday of each month, currently in a virtual format. These virtual meetings are open to the public to attend remotely. Should any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register: https:Horangecountync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN 8VplcrSQTPmbIE5Gs8vhNQ After registering,you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to the BEAG, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please email Greg Wilder atwig lderkoran-eg coup , nc..ov before 3:00 pm on July 22, 2021. 36 ORANGE COUNTY BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AGENDA BOCC Elections Advisory Group August 5, 2021 (Reconvening of Recessed July 22, 2021 Meeting) Reconvened Virtual Meeting—7:00 p.m. Due to current public health concerns, the BOCC Elections Advisory Group is conducting a reconvened Virtual Meeting on August 5, 2021. The Group's Virtual Meeting on July 22, 2021 was recessed and scheduled to reconvene on August 5, 2021 at 7:00 pm. Members of the Group will be participating in the reconvened meeting remotely. 7:00— 7:05 1. Vote to Reconvene the July 22, 2021 Recessed Meeting/Roll Call for Quorum—Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian 7:05 7:10 2. Approval of July 22, 2021 Meeting Summary 7:10—7:15 3. Review of Any Written Comments Received 7:15 7:35 4. Review of Revised Draft Report 7:35 — 8:05 5. Approval of Specific Revisions to the Draft Report 8:05 — 8:20 6. Approval of the Revised Final Report 8:20— 8:30 7. Potential Need for Any Additional Follow-up or Meeting Based on Report Status/Revisions 8:30 8. Adjourn The BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG) conducts regular meetings on the 4th Thursday of each month, currently in a virtual format. These virtual meetings and this reconvened meeting are open to the public to attend remotely. Should any member of the public wish to view this meeting, please click the following link to register: https://oran eg countync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN uAcvwwX7SUmpz9dYf QoBQ After registering,you will receive a follow-up email which will allow you to access and view the meeting. If you have any comments or questions, would like to submit any written comments to the BEAG, or would like an emailed copy of the entire agenda package for this meeting, please email Greg Wilder atwig lderkoran eg coun . nc.gov before 3:00 pm on August 5, 2021. 37 APPROVED Orange County BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting Summary Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Kathy Arab, Nicholas Batman, Dr. Nathan Boucher, Dr. Jennifer Bremer, Jaazaniah Catterall, Dr. Lisa Hazirjian, Dr. Krishna Mondal, Dr. Jonathan Weiler, Brian Crawford, Martha Jenkins, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, Jenn Sykes, Rex Williams Members Absent: Susana Dancy Staff Present: County Attorney John Roberts, Greg Wilder from the County Manager's Office, and Brian Carson from the Planning & Inspections Department 1. Welcome and Introductions Greg Wilder welcomed everyone to the Virtual meeting and expressed appreciation for members' willingness to serve on the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG). He noted that the Group would likely meet via Zoom for all of its meetings unless health circumstances changed substantially. Mr. Wilder also shared that the meeting was open to the public and that several members of the public were viewing the meeting virtually just as they would if the meeting was an in-person meeting. Mr. Wilder detailed the materials that Group members had received as part of the meeting agenda package. All Group members, followed by staff, briefly introduced themselves and each member shared background on the perspectives/interest that prompted their interest in serving on the BEAG. 2. Review of the Group Charge and Timeline Group members discussed the Group Charge, the Timeline for providing a report to the Board of Commissioners, and related issues. The July 31, 2021 deadline for completing the Group's work would require the Group to be diligent. County Attorney John Roberts shared that the Board of Commissioners only had certain authority to consider changes to the method and structure of elections via local referendum, while other changes would require legislative action by the North Carolina General Assembly. Mr. Roberts noted that Orange County approaching the General 38 Assembly at this time requesting something special for Orange County elections would be, at least, difficult and that a referendum would be a better way to go. It was noted that 2020 Census information was not expected to be available until September 2021 at the earliest and that may lead the Group to look at other data, including voter registration, voter turnout, political affiliation data, etc. It was noted that population data was the determining factor for voting district parameters and decision- making. The Group also discussed the format for its report and who would receive it. Mr. Wilder shared that there was not a specific report framework and that the format and its size would likely be dictated by the Group's work and conclusions. Mr. Wilder added that he believed the report was expected to transmit from the Group directly to the Board of Commissioners, and that he surmised that the Board of Commissioners would consider the report, determine a direction, and then pursue opportunities for public input and public hearing as appropriate before considering any specific actions. It was noted that Group may want to receive input from the public as its work proceeded. 3. Review of County's Legal Authority Related to the Election of Members of the Board of Commissioners County Attorney Roberts shared information with the Group regarding the legal parameters under which the Board of Commissioners can change the current framework and method for electing individuals to the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners itself cannot determine how members are elected, the length of terms, etc. The Board of Commissioners can propose items through voter referendum such as the number of Commissioners, the terms of office, and how the Chair is determined, as well as determining the method of election from the four State-authorized methods. Other changes require North Carolina General Assembly action, including early voting, voting sites, cumulative voting, absentee voting, and mail-in voting. The Group could discuss those topics. However, the Board of Commissioners does not have any decision-making authority in those areas. Attorney Roberts added that he would share this information with the Group in writing. 4. Potential Desire for Facilitator to Assist Group Group members discussed the potential desire for the County to contract with a facilitator to help guide the Group's meetings and its discussion, consideration of issues and decision-making processes. Group members noted: the need for an independent person to guide the Group discussions; the desire to make sure all voices were heard, ensuring that a majority of Group members did not dominate the discussion or thereby the decisions made; the desire for the Co-Chairs to be actively involved in the discussions and have opinions rather than just lead/guide the meetings' activities; the need for a professional to help the Group figure out how it was going to make decisions; how to 39 potentially establish a threshold higher than a simple majority for Group decisions; the need for transparency; concerns related to the North/South issue and Chapel Hill influence and Hillsborough influence; and a desire to avoid any potential bias that staff might have. A question arose about how the Group should make decisions on a temporary basis until a potential facilitator could lead the Group through a discussion on voting thresholds for decision-making. County Attorney Roberts noted that the Board of Commissioners' adopted Advisory Board Policy outlined that decisions by advisory boards occurred by simple majority approval, but the Policy did not apply to this Group. He suggested that the Group could consider a higher threshold if it wished. It was noted that the County and the Board of Commissioners itself had utilized facilitators from the Dispute Settlement Center, the UNC School of Government and other entities. Group Member Patrick Mulkey expressed hesitancy with a facilitator as he expected there would not be consensus and there would potentially be split votes on recommendations. Group Members Kathy Arab, Jennifer Bremer and Nathan Boucher expressed interest in pursuing a facilitator. The Group subsequently voted 11-3 to ask staff to work with the County Manager to pursue a facilitator for future Group meetings, hopefully beginning with the March 25, 2021 Group meeting. After some additional discussion of the County's Advisory Board Policy, Group Member Brian Crawford recommended that the Group adopt the County's Advisory Board Policy as a temporary operating policy to conduct business until a facilitator could assist the Group with a potential alternative framework. Group Member Dr. Krishna Mondal seconded, and the Group voted 11-3 to approve, with Group Member Lisa Hazirjian noting an uncomfortableness with voting for something not yet seen. 5. Potential Establishment of Specific Meeting Date & Time Mr. Wilder noted that the current meeting was occurring on the 4th Thursday of the month at 7:00 pm. He wondered if that day and time might be amenable to the Group to establish as a standard meeting schedule. Group Member Jaazaniah Catterall motioned that the Group establish the 4th Thursday of each month at 7:00 pm as its standard meeting date and time. Group Member Jenn Sykes seconded, and the Group voted to approve unanimously. 6. Discussion on and Potential Election of Group Co-Chairs — One from District 1 and One from District 2 Mr. Wilder noted that the Board of Commissioners had directed that the Group elect two Co-Chairs, one from the current District 1 electoral area in the County and one from the 40 current District 2 electoral area in the County. The Co-Chairs would customarily be elected at the first meeting, but staff understood there might be some uncertainty how well Group members knew each other, or members simply might not be prepared to elect Co-Chairs at the first meeting. Mr. Wilder noted that this agenda item provided the opportunity for the Group to discuss and determine how it wanted to proceed. There was some question about which members of the Group should be involved in selecting the two Co-Chairs for the two respective election districts. A facilitator may also help guide the Group in the process of selecting the two Co-Chairs. After further discussion, Group Member Martha Jenkins motioned that any members wanting to be considered for election as one of the Co-Chairs should send an email outlining the reasons for their interest to fellow Group members. Group Member Catterall seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously. 7. Other General Organizational Matters The Group discussed other items related to Group interaction. In follow-up to a question from Group Member Rex Williams, County Attorney Roberts shared information on the need to avoid Group discussions on topics via email in order to comply with open meetings requirements. It was recommended that the Group not use the "Reply All" feature and that the emails of interest regarding Co-Chairs discussed earlier only be submitted to staff for organized distribution, and not sent to the entire Group. It was determined that all emails of interest be sent only to Mr. Wilder by March 11, 2021 — two weeks prior to the next Group meeting. 8. Current Framework for the Election of Members of the Board of Commissioners Mr. Wilder noted that Group members had received a copy of the current BOCC Elections District Map as part of the agenda materials, and that this agenda item provided the opportunity for any Group members to discuss the current framework, clarify any uncertainties, and otherwise discuss as needed. Mr. Wilder briefly detailed the nomination and election method applicable to the current seven seats on the Board of Commissioners. Group Member Jennifer Bremer asked if the method Orange County utilized with district nomination and at-large election was used in other NC counties. Mr. Wilder noted that, on a general basis, the method used by Orange County was not prevalent across the state. Group Member Mulkey requested that the Group receive information on how the other 99 North Carolina counties elect members of their boards of commissioners. There was no additional discussion. 41 9. Discussion on Initial Information or Presentation Requests Group members took the opportunity to discuss and suggest potential information that might be helpful to the Group as it moved forward to future meetings and discussions. The following information and presentations were suggested: • Demographic information related to the urban and rural population and changes since the 2010 Census • Information on areas experiencing or expected to experience significant population growth such as the Mebane/Efland corridor • Demographic information for both school systems and County funding levels for each district • Presentation by Rebecca Tippett with UNC Demography Center • Presentation by Bob Joyce with the UNC School of Government • Online links referenced by Group Member Bremer • Population information broken down by precinct • Information on Recently-approved and Proposed Large/Planned Developments in the County (Example: Collins Ridge) Adjourn Upon motion by Group Member Sykes, seconded by Group Member Nicholas Batman, the Group unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:01 pm. This Meeting Summary was approved at the March 25, 2021 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting. 42 APPROVED Orange County BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting Summary Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Kathy Arab, Dr. Nathan Boucher, Dr. Jennifer Bremer, Jaazaniah Catterall, Susana Dancy, Dr. Lisa Hazirjian, Dr. Krishna Mondal, Dr. Jonathan Weiler, Martha Jenkins, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, Jenn Sykes, Rex Williams Members Absent: Nicholas Batman, Brian Crawford Facilitator: Jay Bryan, Retired District Court Judge Staff Present: County Attorney John Roberts, Greg Wilder from the County Manager's Office, and Brian Carson from the Planning & Inspections Department 1. Welcome and Introductions Greg Wilder welcomed everyone to the Virtual meeting and expressed appreciation for members' willingness to serve on the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG). He noted that the meeting was open to the public and several members of the public were viewing the meeting virtually just as they would if the meeting was an in-person meeting. Mr. Wilder referenced the Group's February 25, 2021 meeting discussion regarding the interest in a facilitator assisting the Group. Based on that discussion, County staff moved forward with engaging a facilitator. Mr. Wilder introduced Jay Bryan, a retired District Court Judge for Orange and Chatham counties, as the Group facilitator. He also referenced an online link that staff had previously provided Group members sharing information regarding Judge Bryan. Judge Bryan introduced himself to Group members and expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to assist them. He noted that he and Group Member Brian Crawford generally knew each other as legal colleagues and that they jointly serve on a mentoring committee through the Bar Association. He noted that he did not recall any other specific connections between him and other Group members. 43 2 2. Discussion on Responsibilities of the Facilitator and Co-Chairs Judge Bryan moved the Group forward to discussing the DRAFT "Responsibilities of the Facilitator and Co-Chairs" document that had been provided with the agenda package. He noted several aspects of the proposed responsibilities to help coordinate efforts and complement each other and opened the floor for Group questions and discussion on any portions of the roles detailed in the draft document. There were no topics for discussion. Judge Bryan requested a show of hands from Group members to indicate support for the "Responsibilities of the Facilitator and Co-Chairs" document as written, and all Group members raised their hands. 3. Ground Rules for Group Function & Interaction Judge Bryan referenced the DRAFT "Discussion Guidelines for BOCC EAG Meetings" document that had been provided with the agenda package. He noted that the draft document originated with Roger Schwarz, with some minor refinements. Judge Bryan opened the floor for Group questions and discussion on any portions of the draft document. There were no topics for discussion. Judge Bryan requested a show of hands from Group members to indicate support for the "Discussion Guidelines for BOCC EAG Meetings" document as written, and all Group members raised their hands. 4. Discussion on Decision-making Process Judge Bryan moved the Group forward to discussing the "Decision-making Processes" document that had been provided with the agenda package. He noted previous Group discussion on consensus and a super-majority framework, and he discussed the various options detailed in the document. In response to a request for clarification from Group Member Martha Jenkins, Group Member Jenn Sykes noted that there had been discussion at the February 25, 2021 meeting regarding the need to establish a framework for the Group to make decisions. Group Member Jenkins suggested that the Group move forward with deciding how decisions were going to be made. Group Member Lisa Hazirjian noted that several members had shared their thoughts at the February 25, 2021 meeting, and that she would like to hear perspectives from other members who had not previously spoken on this matter. She also asked for any viewpoints on previous experiences with any of the voting frameworks. She noted that for some things, like approval of meeting minutes, a simple majority would work. 44 3 Group Member Nathan Boucher noted that he had used consensus for much of his past work and that he liked it. He shared that matters of weight for this Group should require a supermajority and that routine actions should be a simple majority. Group Member Sykes shared that a supermajority threshold needed to be considered with District 1 having 9 representatives and District 2 having 6 representatives on the Group. Group Member Jaazaniah Catterall requested an additional breakdown on the types of decisions that would be made, and he proposed an approval standard of three-fifths plus one of all members present at a meeting. Group Member Jennifer Bremer referenced an alternative with a simple majority that included an additional required support threshold such as two votes in support from Group members from the northern portion of the County. She noted a desire to avoid a framework that was awkward, Judge Bryan inquired with Group members regarding the kind of decisions that would require the higher super-majority standard for approval. Group Member Jonathan Weiler noted that a super-majority should apply for matters of weight and should reference only members actually present at a meeting, not the full membership. Group Member Krishna Mondal questioned whether it was possible for voting to occur by Districts that Group members represented. Group Member Weiler noted that it sounded like there was a definite interest in a two- thirds majority for major decisions. Group Member Hazirjian referenced Group Member Catterall's earlier suggestion and questioned what type of decisions the Group was going to be considering. Group Member Rex Williams noted agreement with Group Member Weiler's comments. A question arose regarding voting in public. County Attorney John Roberts followed up that due to the virtual nature of the meeting, Group members needed to vote in ways that identified the voter publicly by actively expressing votes during meetings through roll call voting or the Chair publicly confirming each member's vote by name. Mr. Wilder read written comments provided by Group Member Kathy Arab who was experiencing internet connections issues as the meeting progressed and had emailed comments to Mr. Wilder as an alternative. Group Member Arab indicated support for a qualified supermajority (2/3 vote of the entire group, not just those in attendance) on decisions other than closing discussion and closing a meeting itself, and a desire to accommodate unfortunate circumstances, like she was experiencing with internet issues, that affected Group members participation and voting. 45 4 Group Member Boucher inquired about the work-around the Group was attempting to address in recognition of District 1 having nine representatives and District 2 having six representatives and how that unevenness was created. Mr. Wilder shared the process the County pursued to solicit applications from residents interested in serving on the BEAG. The Board of Commissioners then reviewed all the applications and selected the Group members to appoint and balance the Group based on various criteria that could include geographical location in the County, gender, population distribution in the County, and other factors. Group Member Hazirjian commented that she would appreciate additional comments from District 2 representatives on the possible parameters for a super-majority threshold for making decisions. Group Member Jenkins asked if members could use a phone to call in to a meeting and to vote, and it was noted that the virtual framework did allow for the use of a phone to participate and vote, with County Attorney Roberts adding that it was permissible provided the phone caller could be heard by everyone. County Attorney Roberts also noted that actual attendance at the meeting was required in order to vote on any items. Group members discussed several factors related to approval of an item by a super- majority plus additional votes in support. Group Member Bremer suggested that a standard of approval for major decision items be at least sixty (60) percent of Group members present at the meeting and at least two members from District 1 and at least two members from District 2 voting in support. Multiple Group members voiced support for the proposal. Group Member Williams motioned that the standard of approval for major decision items be at least sixty (60) percent of Group members present at the meeting including at least two members from District 1 and at least two members from District 2 voting in support. Additionally, items such as approval of minutes and adjourning a meeting would only require a simple majority of members present. Group Member Catterall seconded the motion. Judge Bryan called for any discussion on the motion. Group Member Susana Dancy indicated that she would not be voting on the item since she was not present for all of the discussion. There was no other discussion. Group members then voted by raised hand and roll call on the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Judge Bryan recognized Group Member Dancy to introduce herself since that had not been possible at the beginning of the meeting. Group Member Dancy shared some brief comments with the Group. 5. Discussion on Process to Elect Co-Chairs 46 5 Judge Bryan focused Group discussion to the election of two Co-Chairs as directed by the Board of Commissioners, with one Co-Chair to represent District 1 and one Co-Chair to represent District 2. Group Member Sykes referenced discussion at the February 25, 2021 meeting regarding each District electing its respective Co-Chair. It was noted that Group Member Patrick Mulkey had submitted a Statement of Interest in serving as the District 2 Co-Chair. Group Member Mulkey commented that the Co-Chairs should be elected by simple majority. Group Member Hazirjian noted that she and Group Member Catterall each submitted Statements of Interest in serving as the District 1 Co-Chair, and they had discussed the Co-Chair position prior to the BEAG meeting. Group Member Catterall indicated that he would be supporting Group Member Hazirjian as the District 1 Co-Chair. Group Member Catterall subsequently motioned to elect Group Member Hazirjian as Co-Chair representing District 1 and Group Member Mulkey as Co-Chair representing District 2. Group Member Sykes seconded the motion. Group members then voted by roll call on the motion, and it was approved unanimously. 6. Approval of February 25, 2021 Meeting Summary As the presiding Co-Chair for the remainder of the meeting, Group Co-Chair Hazirjian requested a motion to approve the February 25, 2021 Meeting Summary as written and distributed with the agenda package. Group Co-Chair Mulkey motioned to approve the meeting summary, and Group Member Jenkins seconded the motion. Group Member Dancy indicated that she was abstaining from voting since she did not attend the February 25, 2021 meeting. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the meeting summary was approved unanimously. County Attorney Roberts noted that the Group did need to decide how it wanted to treat abstentions for the purposes of voting. Group Member Sykes motioned that for purposes of all voting by the Group, all abstentions on all items would be considered as a vote in support of the motion on the floor. Group Member Bremer seconded the motion. It was noted that there might need to be an allowance in certain cases for a Group member to abstain due to a legitimate reason or something unforeseen at this time. After discussion, it was agreed that scenario would be an occasion for potential recusal from voting, but not an abstention. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved by a vote of 12 to 1 with Group Member Williams opposed. 7. Potential Election of Group Co-Chairs — One from District 1 and One from District 2 It was noted that this item was addressed earlier in the meeting. 47 6 8. Discussion on Various Information Requests Group discussion moved to the information provided by staff in follow-up to requests from the February 25, 2021 Group meeting. Brian Carson highlighted Orange County population and demographic information for the period 1980 to 2010, estimated Orange County population and demographic information for the period 2010 to 2020, and mapping related to Orange County Precincts, Electoral District, Census Blocks. Mr. Wilder briefly discussed some additional population and demographic information, and also detailed population, demographics, and budget information from Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). He also noted Recent and Planned Development Activity information that had been provided with the agenda package and expressed appreciation to the County's Planning staff for compiling that information. Mr. Wilder then referenced the "Election Methods for 100 North Carolina Counties" document from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) and noted that Mr. Carson had developed the map that was provided based on the list from NCACC. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian expressed appreciation for the map of the NC counties and asked which counties required NC General Assembly legislative action for their voting methods. County Attorney Roberts shared that he could not specifically identify which counties required legislative action, but noted that all the counties that aligned with the the four methods outlined in the NC General Statutes would not have required specific General Assembly action. Group Member Bremer noted that this topic had been confusing as part of her work on redistricting research, and that Orange County was one of the few in the state that utilized the districts nomination/at large general election method. She also referenced a chart she was working on that summarized election methods. Mr. Wilder noted an article provided in the agenda package, "Redistricting for Local Governments After the 2000 Census", by Robert Joyce with the UNC School Government. Mr. Wilder noted that Group Member Bremer had recommended the Group members review the article by Mr. Joyce and that Mr. Joyce might be a potential speaker to the Group, as well as Rebecca Tippett with the Carolina Demography Center. Group Member Bremer noted that she was not necessarily pushing Mr. Joyce as a speaker, rather as something for the Group to consider as possibly useful. Group Member Jenkins noted that it might be useful to hear from him, and County Attorney Roberts stated that Mr. Joyce is considered an elections law expert. Judge Bryan noted that inviting the speakers would be a discussion topic for the Co- Chairs for the next Group meeting 48 Mr. Wilder closed by noting other information provided in the agenda package that had been previously referenced. 9. Planning/Potential Topics for April 22, 2021 and Future Group Meetings Group Co-Chair Hazirjian noted a need for the Group to discuss potentially and, if so, how to engage the public in the Group's work and receive input. Group Members Bremer agreed. After additional discussion, Judge Bryan proposed that the Co-Chairs discuss options in preparation for the April 22, 2021 Group meeting. Group Member Sykes noted that the County and Towns should be able to solicit public input and poll the public through their public information officers. Group Co-Chair Mulkey noted that the Group needed to have a framework that the public could respond to rather than something poorly defined. Group Member Jaaz Catterall noted that the presentations by Mr. Joyce, as discussed earlier, as well as by Rebecca Tippett with the Carolina Demography Center, may help identify issues and help the Group determine potential changes. Group members discussed receiving local election turnout data and precinct voting data from past elections and proportion of completed ballots that would allow Group members to see voting trends across the County. Group Member Sykes noted that much of this information for Orange County was accessible through the State Board of Elections website and suggested staff utilize the State site as a resource. 10. Meeting Evaluation This item was not addressed due to the length of the meeting. Adjourn Group Member Bremer motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 pm. Group Member Boucher seconded the motion. Group members voted by roll call on the motion to adjourn, and it was approved unanimously. This Meeting Summary was approved at the April 22, 2021 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting. 49 APPROVED Orange County BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting Summary Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Kathy Arab, Dr. Jennifer Bremer, Jaazaniah Catterall, Susana Dancy, Dr. Lisa Hazirjian, Martha Jenkins, Dr. Krishna Mondal, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, Jenn Sykes, Dr. Jonathan Weiler, Rex Williams Members Absent: Nicholas Batman, Dr. Nathan Boucher, Brian Crawford Facilitator: Jay Bryan, Retired District Court Judge Staff Present: Greg Wilder from the County Manager's Office, and Brian Carson from the Planning & Inspections Department Others Present: Bob Joyce, UNC School of Government, Rebecca Tippett with Carolina Demography at the UNC Population Center, and Todd McGee, Orange County Community Relations Director 1. Welcome and Introductions Group Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey welcomed everyone to the Virtual meeting and expressed appreciation for members' willingness to serve on the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG). He noted that the meeting was open to the public and several members of the public were viewing the meeting virtually just as they would if the meeting was an in- person meeting. Group Co-Chair Mulkey requested a roll call of the members present and asked Mr. Wilder to announce the names of Group members for roll call purposes. Mr. Wilder read the names of Group members, with members present responding accordingly. 2. Approval of March 25, 2021 Meeting Summary Group Co-Chair Mulkey requested a motion to approve the March 25, 2021 Meeting Summary as written and distributed with the agenda package. Group Member Jenn Sykes motioned to approve the meeting summary, and Group Member Jonathan Weiler seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Mulkey asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the meeting summary was approved unanimously. 50 2 3. Discussion with Robert (Bob) Joyce, UNC School of Government Professor of Public Law and Government Judge Bryan introduced Dr. Bob Joyce, UNC School of Government Professor of Public Law and Government, to discuss county elections provisions within the state. Dr. Joyce shared that counties were structures created by and subject to the North Carolina General Assembly. Dr. Joyce referenced materials he had provided that were included in the published agenda materials. Dr. Joyce continued that there were four elements related to the election of members to boards of commissioners — number of commissioners, term lengths, selection method for the board chair, and the method of election for members of boards of commissioners. He followed up by outlining the four methods of election for members of boards of commissioners. He also shared that the procedures to change the method of electing members of the boards of commissioners could not be determined by board members themselves, but were subject to approval of voters by public referendum. He added that, conversely, city councils were authorized under state law to change the method their members are elected with or without a referendum, but boards of county commissioners did not have that authority and must conduct a voter referendum. Dr. Joyce subsequently shared information regarding the North Carolina General Assembly's ability to change the method of elections for a county board of commissioners through state legislation. He noted three examples from the North Carolina General Statutes that were referenced in the published agenda materials. He confirmed that these were local acts, not public acts that would apply across the state. Bladen County had been the subject of local act authorization making changes in the method of elections for Bladen commissioners. Lee County also had a local act addressing its commissioners' elections. Judge Bryan inquired if Group members had any questions for Dr. Joyce. It was noted that Orange County had a blended election method and that Orange and Carteret counties may be the only counties that utilized similar blended methods. Dr. Joyce stated that he was not aware of any specific rationale for Orange County's current method and not aware of any specific advantages to it. He also shared that any proposed method change for Orange County could, at the earliest, be scheduled for public referendum as part of the May 2022 primary election or November 2022 general election, and if approved by voters, could not be implemented until 2024 elections. The only way a change could occur sooner would be through a local act by the General Assembly. Dr. Joyce also shared up that he had some uncertainty about the availability of results from the 2020 Census and that the General Assembly surely needed to take action regarding the 2022 election schedule based on that delay. Responding to other inquiries from Group members, Dr. Joyce stated that a local act affecting a county's method of elections was typically introduced by a General Assembly member who represented that county; that the act traditionally, but not always, had the support of the entire delegation from a county; that the legislation may or may not have public input; and that the General Assembly had complete autonomy since even the 51 3 Governor did not have a role in approving or signing a local act addressing a county's method of election. Mr. Joyce addressed a final topic, noting that school board members in North Carolina do not have the authority to change the system under which they are elected, but that they could re-district, and only the General Assembly can change the way members of boards of education are elected. Judge Bryan thanked Mr. Joyce for his presentation and response to questions from the Group, and Mr. Joyce noted he was glad to respond to any future questions via email or otherwise. 4. Discussion with Rebecca Tippett, Carolina Demography, UNC Population Center Judge Bryan moved the Group forward to a presentation from Dr. Rebecca Tippett with Carolina Demography at the UNC Population Center. Dr. Tippett shared that state level census numbers would be published in the next few weeks, but local census numbers were scheduled for release in September 2021 and that she was cautiously optimistic on that date. Dr. Tippett briefly discussed multiple slides that were included in the published agenda package for the meeting, noting Orange County population growth increases, percentage growth numbers across different decades, and population growth in different locations within the county over time. She noted that many Orange County changes were attributable to migration and changes in characteristics of the population related to race/ethnicity and age. She added that Orange County's population was getting older naturally, as opposed to Chatham County with its population getting older as a result of being a retiree destination for people moving there. Judge Bryan inquired if Group members had any questions for Dr. Tippett. Dr. Tippett clarified that the figures and population numbers she shared for Orange County included the municipalities and that the boundaries for the mapping were city limit boundaries, not planning areas. She also noted that the upcoming census data proposed for distribution in September 2021 would be the most detailed ever and that data was collected and compiled to avoid any double-counting or confusion as it may relate to the racial composition of the public. Judge Bryan thanked Dr. Tippett for her presentation and response to questions from the Group, and Dr. Tippett noted she was glad to respond to and future questions via email or otherwise. 5. Discussion with Orange County Community Relations Director Todd McGee Judge Bryan turned the Group to a discussion with Orange County Community Relations Director Todd McGee. Judge Bryan introduced Mr. McGee and noted that he was with 52 4 the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) for 15 years before joining Orange County. Mr. McGee provided a brief presentation on the various areas of public interaction that he and the County as a whole pursued to inform, involve and solicit feedback from the public. He referenced the County website, electronic newsletters, social media, survey monkey, digital message monitors in County facilities, press releases, and local newspapers. He noted that the tools that would work best depended on what information was being sought. He also confirmed a good relationship with the towns and their public information officers. Judge Bryan inquired if Group members had any topics they would like to discussion with Mr. McGee. Responding to inquiries, Mr. McGee noted that he had worked with countywide polls and surveys utilizing mailing lists as well as email groups, including for initiatives for the County's Library Services and Animal Services. He noted 5-10% response rates. He added that short answer/multiple choice answer options worked better than open-ended questions. He added that response rates varied and it was sometimes difficult to determine the exact individuals and/or groups who were responding. It was noted that the County had partners who could help with soliciting public input, and Mr. McGee stated that the Chambers were good for amplifying messages along with other entities. It was good to use multiple avenues to solicit responses. Mr. McGee noted that members of the Board of Commissioners had conducted town hall type meetings, but he was not aware of the use of focus groups. Mr. McGee also noted the use of a customer satisfaction survey by Orange County several years ago. Mr. McGee also briefly discussed bias in responses, commenting that it was often difficult to assess responses due to the limited number of responses and inability to make judgements. A large response is necessary to create statistical relevant data. He noted the lack of ability to target specific geographic areas. He also noted that getting too deep into election law would be a challenge to succeeding with a short form survey. Group members then discussed the nature of survey questions with Mr. McGee. Mr. McGee shared that an entity should have a survey available for at least two weeks, and longer if possible, and that compiling the results was relatively easy and quick once the survey period closed. An introductory page/paragraph may be worth considering leading into the survey. Judge Bryan thanked Mr. McGee for his information and response to questions from the Group, 6. Identify Strengths and Concerns with Current Framework/Method for Board of Commissioners Elections Group discussion moved to the current framework/method for Board of Commissioners elections, with Group members voicing their thoughts. Comments were as follows: 53 5 Strengths Jonathan Weiler— If people really do not care, why change? Jennifer Bremer— Having an at-large seat gives rural or north area an opportunity to have representation Rex Williams — Having the two district shows that there is an understanding that Chapel Hill and Carrboro will dominate the election process Susana Dancy—An at-large seat allows people to think more broadly rather than districtly oriented Concerns Jaaz Catterall • Having district voting in primary and then at-large during general election allows the larger portion of the county to elect who they want • Having a district based system would give the candidate opportunity to campaign in areas they are familiar with. Give people in districts better access to their candidate Jonathan Weiler • Blended system does not make any sense. Martha Jenkins • Current system is complicated • The public does not understand it • People do not understand the at-large concept • A large area of the county does not feel represented • Northern Orange feels southern Orange will out vote for at-large Jenn Sykes • Current system shifts funding towards the south rather than equally throughout county Jennifer Bremer • More single member districts gives more representation to other parts of the county. Kathy Arab • Needs closer representation to people throughout the county • More districts could allow people to feel more connected to their representative • Sections of the population do not feel represented • At-large option could allow all to be from Chapel Hill y Make requirement that one at-large does not live in Chapel Hill Krishna Mondal • Blended system causes confusion • Get rid of at-large • Need more representation Rex Williams • At-large voting dominated by Chapel Hill and Carrboro area 54 6 • Blended and at-large system does not represent a true representative government Susana Dancy • At large has some value, but would like to see more districts leading to a more represented system Alicia Reid • Chapel Hill and Carrboro seems to be making all the decisions because that is where the population is • Rural parts are not being represented Patrick Mulkey • Single member districts county wide ➢ Better representation Lisa Hazirjian • Creates barrier to people without access to wealth getting elected ➢ More districts might help avoid this 7. Potential Determine Action Steps in Preparation for BEAG Final Recommendations - Next Steps for Public Input - Other Steps? - Potential Need for Additional Meetings? Or Changes in Meeting Time Judge Bryan moved the Group to discussing how it would like to proceed forward based on the information received during the meeting and the subsequent discussion. Group members considered various ways to begin soliciting public input, including the Co-Chairs drafting potential questions that could be utilized in a public input process, limiting individuals to only one response to a survey, and a potential subcommittee to consider the next steps. The Group then discussed potential volunteers to serve on a Public Input Subcommittee to meet and bring back a recommendation to the full Group on a public input framework. Group Member Dancy made a motion to establish a Public Input Subcommittee of up to 6 members. Group Member Sykes seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Mulkey asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. Volunteers for the Subcommittee were then solicited, and Group Members Weiler, Bremer, Mondal, Sykes, and Catterall voiced their interest. Group Member Dancy made a motion to appoint the five volunteers to the Public Input Subcommittee. Group Member Catterall seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Mulkey asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. It was noted that the Subcommittee would provide information to the full Group at the May meeting. 55 8. Planning for Next Meeting Group members briefly discussed future meetings, specifically the May 27th meeting and potentially rescheduling it to May 20th. After discussion, it was decided to keep the meeting scheduled for May 27th 9. Meeting Evaluation This item was not addressed due to the length of the meeting. Adjourn Group Member Sykes motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 pm. Group Member Mondal seconded the motion. Group members voted by roll call on the motion to adjourn, and it was approved unanimously. This Meeting Summary was approved at the May 27, 2021 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting. 56 APPROVED Orange County BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting Summary Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Kathy Arab, Dr. Nathan Boucher, Dr. Jennifer Bremer, Jaazaniah Catterall, Brian Crawford, Susana Dancy, Dr. Lisa Hazirjian, Martha Jenkins, Dr. Krishna Mondal, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, Jenn Sykes, Dr. Jonathan Weiler Members Absent: Rex Williams Facilitator: Jay Bryan, Retired District Court Judge Staff Present: John Roberts, Orange County Attorney, Greg Wilder from the County Manager's Office, Brian Carson from the Planning & Inspections Department, and Todd McGee, Orange County Community Relations Director Others Present: None 1. Welcome and Introductions Group Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian welcomed everyone to the Virtual meeting and expressed appreciation for members' willingness to serve on the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG). Group Co-Chair Hazirjian also thanked the members of the Public Input Subcommittee for their work. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian requested a roll call of the members present and asked Mr. Wilder to announce the names of Group members for roll call purposes. Mr. Wilder noted that Group Member Nicholas Batman had stepped down from his membership on the Group, and that Group Member Rex Williams had indicated he could not attend the meeting due to a conflict. Mr. Wilder then read the names of Group members, with members present responding accordingly. 2. Approval of April 22, 2021 Meeting Summary Group Co-Chair Hazirjian requested a motion to approve the April 22, 2021 Meeting Summary as written and distributed with the agenda package. Group Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey motioned to approve the meeting summary, and Group Member Jenn Sykes seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of 57 2 Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the meeting summary was approved unanimously. 3. Receipt of Report/Recommendations from Public Input Subcommittee • DRAFT Subcommittee SurveyMonkey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XZHDPS7 Judge Jay Bryan thanked staff for its work preparing for the meeting and also joined with Co-Chair Hazirjian in appreciation to the Subcommittee members. He asked members of the Subcommittee to share information on their work and the proposed SurveyMonkey that had been shared as part of the agenda materials. Group Member and Subcommittee Member Sykes initiated discussion on the Subcommittee's efforts and, with assistance from Mr. McGee, began a question by question review of the draft SurveyMonkey. Group members suggested language changes on several draft questions related to determining the geographical location of respondents and respondents feeling connecting to County Commissioners and their voice/their community's voice being heard by County Commissioners. Mr. McGee incorporated those proposed revisions as discussion continued. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian suggested that the Subcommittee complete an overview of the entire SurveyMonkey, detailing the entire set of draft questions first, and then the full Group discuss the questions and consider additional revisions. Group Member and Subcommittee Member Sykes, with assistance from Mr. McGee, continued with the question by question summary of the draft SurveyMonkey. 4. Discuss and Finalize Plans Regarding Public Input • Discuss Survey Content, Propose Any Revisions, and Vote on Final Version • Discuss & Approve Plans to Generate Survey Responses • Discuss & Vote on Additional Methods of Gathering Public Input (e.g., Holding a Public Hearing, Inviting Written and/or Recorded Public Input, etc.) Judge Bryan moved the Group forward to discussion on the draft SurveyMonkey questions. Group members suggested various language changes on several draft questions as the discussion proceeded, including questions related to respondents' potential interest in single-member districts, multi-member districts, at large seats, and a combination of these election methods. Mr. McGee incorporated those proposed revisions. Various questions were added, re-worded or replaced, and some questions were deleted. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian noted that the Board of Commissioners had extended the Group's Report/Recommendations deadline from July 31, 2021 to August 15, 2021. 58 3 Group Co-Chair Hazirjian also referenced an email that Mr. Wilder had received from a resident earlier in the day indicating a desire to speak to the Group at the meeting about the draft SurveyMonkey. Based on Group Co-Chair Hazirjian's request, Mr. Wilder shared the email on the Zoom remote meeting. Mr. Wilder had consulted with both Co- Chairs and had responded to the resident, encouraging the submittal of written comments. The resident's email voiced disappointment with the lack of the opportunity to speak directly to the Group. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian noted that the email also referenced the lack of content related to potential non-partisan election for the Board of Commissioners and the lack of any questions related to "ranked choice" voting. It was noted that both options would require action by the North Carolina General Assembly to be available for consideration since neither was authorized in the State law, and that pursuing action through the General Assembly may not be workable. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian suggested that the press release announcing the survey should give definite context for the survey. Group Member Brian Crawford suggested that the Group add an item to all future agendas for the Group to receive public written comments on any topics related to the Group's work and discussions. Group members continued discussion on various wording changes for several draft questions, including the addition of an open-ended question at the end of the survey. County Attorney John Roberts shared, just for Group members' reference, that a recent Supreme Court decision had resulted in the mix of multi-member and single-member districts being determined to be unconstitutional at the State level, and that the result could conceivably also become true at some point at the local level. With discussion and revision of the draft questions concluding, Group Co-Chair Hazirjian requested that Mr. McGee scroll through all the questions one-by-one to allow Group members one final review and any additional refinements. Mr. McGee proceeded through all the questions and Group members made a few minor modifications. Group Member Susana Dancy motioned to approve the updated SurveyMonkey document. Group Member Crawford seconded the motion. Upon further consideration, Group Member Dancy provided an amended motion to approve the updated SurveyMonkey document with the addition of language "Unincorporated southern portion of the county" to the geographical Iocatgion question and the addition of an open-ended question at the end requesting any other comments. Group Member Crawford seconded the amended motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian directed the Group to the comments earlier by Group Member Crawford regarding adding an item to all future agendas for the Group to receive public 59 4 written comments on any topics related to the Group's work and discussions. She asked if the Group wanted to consider any action on that proposal. Group Member Crawford motioned to add an item to all future agendas for the Group to receive public written comments on any topics related to the Group's work and discussions. Group Member Jaaz Catterall seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. Judge Bryan asked if the Group wanted to consider any specific plans regarding distribution of the SurveyMonkey. He noted the time and that the meeting was scheduled to adjourn in 5 minutes, and asked for the Group to extend the meeting. Based on discussion, Judge Bryan stated that the meeting would be extended. Group Member Sykes commented that Mr. McGee had shared a list of planned distribution options during the Subcommittee's meeting. Group Member Sykes and Mr. McGee then shared a list of expected distribution options including town public information officers, social media, local radio stations, County email distribution lists, local groups, the County's weekly newsletter, the County's 2020 Census partners, the Orange County Government website front page, and the News of Orange. It was also noted that Group members could share it with the various organizations and groups they were affiliated with. Mr. McGee indicated that the SurveyMonkey would be limited to one response per IP address to limit duplicate submittals. It was also noted that the survey could be available during the first week in June, would be available for a period of two weeks, which would allow the results to be available for the Group's June meeting, and that the Co-Chairs would provide final review prior to publication. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian referenced any other public input opportunities, including any Group interest in scheduling a public hearing to receive public input. It was noted that the Board of Commissioners would have an open public process and that the Group could receive written comments. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Group members if there was any need to consider additional action related to the Group accepting written, audio and video comments from the public. It was noted that the press release developed by the Co-Chairs and staff announcing the SurveyMonkey should include language soliciting written, audio, and video comments from the public and include a mailing address for submittals through the US Postal Service. Group members discussed and left the options open for future consideration. Group Member Crawford volunteered to assist the Co-Chairs in drafting information for a potential public hearing that would potentially occur sometime after the June Group meeting, likely for the public to provide input on the Group's draft recommendations. 60 5 5. Identify Remaining Tasks to be Completed by Group • What Decision Points/Questions Need to be Answered Before a Report on Group Recommendations is Drafted? This item was addressed in conjunction with Item 6 below. 6. Set a Timeline for Completing These Tasks • Does the Group Need Any Additional Meeting(s)? Group Co-Chair Hazirjian, with the assistance of Group Member Catterall, shared a Jamboard document in the Zoom remote meeting outlining the remaining timeline and activities for Group discussion and decisions. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian reminded Group members of the extension to August 15, 2021 for the Group's Report/Recommendations. Group Members discussed the schedule, the drafting of the report by Judge Bryan, Report review by the Co-Chairs and the full Group, and the opportunity to solicit public feedback on an executive summary before refining and finalizing the Report. It was noted that the Report could include recommendations to the Board of Commissioners on soliciting public opinion on the Report and any other potential considerations in follow-up to the Group's work and that the press release should also solicit written comments. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian shared that there may be a need for an additional Group meeting to review and approve the final Report document between the scheduled meeting in July and the August 15, 2021 deadline. 7. Meeting Evaluation This item was not addressed due to the length of the meeting. Adjourn Group Member Dancy motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 pm. Group Member Sykes seconded the motion. Group members voted by roll call on the motion to adjourn, and it was approved unanimously. This Meeting Summary was approved at the June 24, 2021 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting. 61 APPROVED Orange County BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting Summary Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Kathy Arab, Dr. Nathan Boucher, Dr. Jennifer Bremer, Jaazaniah Catterall, Susana Dancy, Dr. Lisa Hazirjian, Martha Jenkins, Dr. Krishna Mondal, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, Jenn Sykes, Dr. Jonathan Weiler, Rex Williams Members Absent: Brian Crawford Facilitator: Jay Bryan, Retired District Court Judge Staff Present: Anne Marie Tosco, Orange County Attorney's Office, Greg Wilder from the County Manager's Office, Brian Carson from the Planning & Inspections Department, and Todd McGee, Orange County Community Relations Director Others Present: None 1. Welcome and Introductions Group Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey welcomed everyone to the Virtual meeting and expressed appreciation for members' willingness to serve on the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG). Group Co-Chair Mulkey requested a roll call of the members present and asked Mr. Wilder to announce the names of Group members for roll call purposes. Mr. Wilder then read the names of Group members, with members present responding accordingly. 2. Approval of May 27, 2021 Meeting Summary Group Co-Chair Mulkey requested a motion to approve the May 27, 2021 Meeting Summary as written and distributed with the agenda package. Group Member Jenn Sykes motioned to approve the meeting summary, and Group Member Kathy Arab seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Mulkey asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the meeting summary was approved unanimously. 62 2 3. Review of Any Written Comments Received It was noted that County staff had previously shared with Group members one email trail that was sent to the Board of Commissioners regarding the SurveyMonkey public input effort initiated by the BEAG. It was also noted that County staff had previously shared one individual email that was sent to the Board of Commissioners regarding the lack of opportunity on one of the SurveyMonkey questions to address the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. There was no additional discussion. 4. Review and Discussion of SurveyMonkey Results Orange County Community Relations Director Todd McGee presented a Powerpoint presentation on the Zoom screen detailing the responses to the public input SurveyMonkey published by the BEAG. Mr. McGee shared that 413 responses were received during the two week response window, and that he felt that was a pretty good response level for the survey. Mr. McGee detailed various demographics of the respondents as well as the cumulative percentage results for each of the SurveyMonkey questions. Group Co-Chair Mulkey indicated that that was definitely more public input than had been received during the 1993 discussions on the elections for Commissioners seats and likely more than was received when the current election system was implemented. Group Co- Chair Lisa Hazirjian stated that responses and demographics were great, and that the Group should include suggestions to the Board of Commissioners regarding soliciting additional public input and participation and use of community centers and other ways to involve the public. Group Member Rex Williams expressed concern that the survey did not have sufficient time and had not reached those that did not vote and were not involved in the community. 5. Review of Preliminary Perspectives Submitted by Individual Group Members and Development of Draft Scenarios for Group Consideration (Potential Three Minute Limit Per Speaker) Group discussion moved forward to the preliminary perspective responses and Group Members thoughts on potential scenarios for consideration and recommendations. Group Member Arab shared her thoughts that the true election districts were the only election method that addressed the criteria of proportionality, equity, uniformity, simplicity/clarity, maximizing voter engagement, and better representation. The current two district blended election system allowed the Chapel Hill area to disenfranchise the voting interests of the other parts of the County in a countywide vote. The imbalance had been recognized by the Group and noted in the SurveyMonkey responses. The desire for true election districts appeared to be strong based on responses in questions 5 and 7 on the SurveyMonkey. Responses to questions 8 and 9 indicated the need for true election districts. Eliminating at-large seats and the mix of urban and rural areas could 63 3 lead to better representation. Seven single member districts matched the number of seven townships in the County. Responses in the SurveyMonkey also supported non- partisan elections. Candidates could also be required to be long-standing members of the community, not individuals new to the County who do not understand what rural voters need. If nothing changes, the citizens of Orange County will be greatly discouraged. Group Member Jaaz Catterall indicated agreement with many of Group Member Arab's comments and noted that true election districts would increase voter engagement. Group Member Nathan Boucher indicated an interest in the Group recommending providing greater representation for the northern part of the County. Group Member Jennifer Bremer commented that she leaned toward single member districts and not in favor of at-large candidates and noted that 60 counties in North Carolina have five commissioner seats and 33 have seven seats. Group Member Williams stated that he agreed with individual districts and that at-large seats might be worth considering if the population was more evenly distributed throughout the County. He expressed concern that the Group had not conducted much discussion so that he could be comfortable with making a recommendation and that it might be worth requesting more time for the Group to work. Group Member Susana Dancy noted the strong interest in district level voting from the SurveyMonkey and that pursuing districts along township lines was hard given the County's population distribution. Group Member Martha Jenkins noted that she appreciated Group Member Arab's comments and agreed with many of the other comments, that the Group was not drawing the districts, and that following township lines would not comply with the one person/one vote requirements. Group Member Krishna Mondal expressed an interest in seven single member districts which would provide good representation from various groups and from the unincorporated areas. Group Member Jonathan Weiler noted that he supported the re-balancing from the heavy Chapel Hill representation on the Board of Commissioners, and that he realized he was in the minority with the thought there should be a mix of at-large and district seats with better representation of the other areas of the County. Group Member Sykes indicated an interest in single member districts with seven or nine seats, with population growth being a consideration for more than seven seats, and that she felt like it was best to not pursue something that might involve the North Carolina General Assembly. Group Co-Chair Mulkey indicated interest in seven single member districts. He noted that making elections non-partisan usually wound up focusing to political parties anyway 64 4 since the different parties actively supported their preferred candidates, so non-partisan elections often did not have the intended effect. He stated that he was not inclined to nine commissioner seats due to additional cost to taxpayers and single member districts gave those with less means to be able to afford to run. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian shared that she agreed with some of the comments made by Group Member Williams, that she supported single member residency and voting districts, and that she would have preferred to have more responses from non-white residents as part of the SurveyMonkey. Group Member Mondal noted that the responses from the SurveyMonkey and the preliminary perspectives from Group members aligned regarding seats being elected by district. Group Member Jenkins noted that she thought there were only two options up for consideration based on discussion —seven single member districts, or five or seven single member districts with two at-large seats. The concept of straw votes was discussed. However, Anne Marie Tosco from the County Attorney's Office noted that, for lack of a specific procedure, Robert's Rules of Order did not provide the option for straw votes. 6. Discussion on Finalizing Recommendations The Group moved forward to discussing whether there was a consensus on seven commissioner seats. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian commented that either of the options with seven single member districts noted by Group Member Jenkins opened up opportunities to vote. Group Member Catterall expressed support for seven commissioner seats. Group Member Arab noted the current seven seats and that she was not in favor of any at large seats. Group Member Dancy shared that nine people on a board was a lot, that she was currently serving on another commission and they were trying to reduce that committee down from nine members, and that seven members was preferable. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian questioned if the Group wanted to provide a set recommendation in its report to the Board of Commissioners, or a set of ideas and some specific things to not consider. Group Member Sykes recommended that the Group specifically state in its report that the current system is not acceptable. Group Members Hazirjian and Catterall agreed with Group Member Sykes. Group Member Bremer expressed interest in a single recommendation, but also note other items and options that were considered. Group Co-Chair Mulkey inquired with Group members regarding a motion that made a statement regarding the current system for electing members of the Board of Commissioners. Group Member Sykes motioned that the Group state that the current system to elect commissioners is not acceptable and unsatisfactory in Orange County based on the Group's research, SurveyMonkey responses, and the real world results in 65 5 the County and is in need of reclamation. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Mulkey asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. Group Member Weiler commented that he knew he was in the minority, but he wanted to note that at-large seats can capture and reflect population growth and that seats should represent people, not land. Group Member Dancy stated that she agreed with Group Member Weiler and that she was supportive of a couple of at-large seats. Group Member Sykes noted that with single member districts, sometimes you do not find countywide solutions. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian stated she was most comfortable with single member districts and Group Member Bremer noted that single member districts were the easiest to understand. Group Member Catterall noted that while he was supportive of single member districts, at large seats did allow a person to vote for more than one person to represent them. Group Member Arab commented that she can understand the interest in at-large members, but seven districts will allow equal representation of their perspectives. Group Co-Chair Mulkey inquired with Group members regarding a motion. Group Member Jenkins made a motion that the Group recommend seven single member residency districts where candidates in the districts are voted on in both the primary and the general election by only the voters in the respective districts. Group Member Catterall seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Mulkey asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved by a vote of 12 to 1, with Group Member Dancy opposed. Group Member Dancy indicated that she agreed with the recommendation for seven seats, but that there is value in having some at-large seats. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian noted that seven single member districts would require redistricting, and motioned that the Group strongly recommend that the Board of Commissioners establish a multi-partisan/non-partisan independent advisory group and process to create the seven districts: • based the criteria outlined in the Group's Charge — Constitutional and statutory requirements and voting rights law; Proportionality, Equity, Uniformity, Simplicity/clarity, and Maximizing voter engagement • that seeks wherever possible to keep communities of interest together; and • that avoids splitting precincts. 66 6 Group Member Sykes seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Mulkey asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. The discussion moved to the actual drafting of the Group report, and it was noted that Judge Bryan would develop the initial draft document. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian expressed an interest in trying to review that draft document and have it ready for Group approval at the July 22, 2021 meeting. Group Member Jenn Sykes noted the potential to have a Google document or other technical means to enable Group members to review and make comments, but not changes, on the draft and therefore avoid one Group member deleting language provided by another Group member. Group Member Sykes then motioned that the report include a recommendation that the Board of Commissioners hold a series of public meetings and listening sessions to allow public input and that the Board act in time to allow for a public referendum on any proposed election plan/method in 2022. Group Member Williams seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Mulkey asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian noted that the report should also reference non-partisan elections, ranked choice voting, and public financing not being addressed since the County does not have legislative authority on this issues, but that there is interest in discussion even though the Group agreed to not pursue anything that required North Carolina General Assembly action. 7. Potential Need for Any Additional Meeting(s) There was no specific discussion of this item. 8. Adjourn Group Member Jenkins motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 pm. Group Member Sykes seconded the motion. Group members voted by roll call on the motion to adjourn, and it was approved unanimously. This Meeting Summary was approved at the July 22, 2021 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting. 67 APPROVED Orange County BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting Summary Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Kathy Arab, Dr. Jennifer Bremer, Jaazaniah Catterall, Dr. Lisa Hazirjian, Martha Jenkins, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, Jenn Sykes, Dr. Jonathan Weiler, Rex Williams Members Absent: Dr. Nathan Boucher, Brian Crawford, Susana Dancy, Dr. Krishna Mondal Facilitator: Jay Bryan, Retired District Court Judge Staff Present: James Bryan, Orange County Attorney's Office, Greg Wilder from the County Manager's Office, Brian Carson from the Planning & Inspections Department, and Todd McGee, Orange County Community Relations Director Others Present: None (NOTE: There is no known relationship/family connection between Facilitator/Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan and James Bryan with the Orange County Attorney's Office.) 1. Roll Call for Quorum Group Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian welcomed everyone to the Virtual meeting and expressed appreciation for members' willingness to serve on the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG) and for the work everyone had completed together. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian requested a roll call of the members present and asked Mr. Wilder to announce the names of Group members for roll call purposes. Mr. Wilder then read the names of Group members, with members present responding accordingly. 2. Approval of June 24, 2021 Meeting Summary Group Co-Chair Hazirjian requested a motion to approve the June 24, 2021 Meeting Summary as written and distributed with the agenda package. Group Member Jennifer Bremer motioned to approve the meeting summary, and Group Member Jenn Sykes seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of 68 2 Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the meeting summary was approved unanimously. 3. Review of Any Written Comments Received It was noted that County staff had received one email requesting a copy of the draft report. Mr. Wilder shared that he subsequently provided the full agenda package to that individual which included the draft report as well as the alternate report document. There was no additional discussion. 4. Discussion on Draft Report Judge Jay Bryan opened discussion on the updated draft Report document that had been included in the agenda package. Group Member Martha Jenkins shared that she was open to either Report document and that she was glad to follow the will of the Group. Group Member Kathy Arab commented that she had reviewed and provided some suggestions to the document provided by Group Member Jenkins. It was noted that approximately five Group members had previously provided individual suggested revisions on the original first draft, and those comments were reflected in the "mark-up" version in the agenda package. A"clean" version of the Report reflecting those updates was also included. Approximately three members had previously responded that the original draft Report read well and addressed all the necessary items. And, as referenced earlier, Group Member Jenkins had provided an alternate Report document that was included in the agenda package and could also be discussed and considered. Group Member Bremer commented that both documents were good and asked if there was a specific format for reports submitted to the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Wilder responded that there was not a specific format, and that the format for this report is up to the Group. Group Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey noted that he appreciated the benefits of both report documents, adding that the Bryan document read like a legal document, which appropriately followed Judge Bryan's background, and the Jenkins document read more simplistically and for laypeople. He also noted that he appreciated the unique opportunity for Group members to be involved in the review and finalization of the Report document, since that was not provided years ago during his past effort on this same topic. He indicated he was good with either document. Group Member Sykes commented that she appreciated Group Member Mulkey's comments relative to the report and it being simple to read for all the future readers. Shorter may also be better for presentation to the Board of Commissioners. Group Member Jaaz Catterall shared that he appreciated having both documents, and that he hoped that the final document would include the language in the Bryan document regarding the Group's discussion and conclusions on election methods not being pursued 69 3 and the at-large election method. Group Member Jonathan Weiler voiced his agreement with Group Member Catterall's comments. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian shared that she had been reviewing both Report documents and that potentially the Group consider using the Jenkins document as the principal document and incorporate the substance of Recommendations/Suggestions section from the Bryan document into the Jenkins document under the first bullet point. 5. Approval of Specific Revisions to the Draft Report Group Member Arab suggested that the Group consider, as detailed by Group Co-Chair Hazirjian, incorporating the language from the Bryan document ("Response" section on page 8) into the Jenkins document (on page 6 under the first bullet point). Group Member Arab further commented, as Group Member Catterall had suggested, that the Group consider incorporating the at-large, last two paragraphs language from page 10 of the Bryan document into page 6 of the Jenkins document under the second bullet point. Group Member Arab followed up and suggested that the Group consider incorporating the one paragraph single member district language from page 9 of the Bryan document into the Jenkins document on page 6 under the third bullet point. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked if any Group members would like to make a motion based on the suggestions. Group Member Sykes motioned for the Group to proceed with the Jenkins document and incorporate the "Response" language, the at-large language, and the single member language from the Bryan document into the Jenkins document as discussed. Group Member Bremer seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian and Judge Bryan asked if there were any other potential revisions to consider for the Report document. After a brief discussion on information County Attorney John Roberts had provided regarding multi-member districts, it was determined there were not any additional proposals from Group members. Mr. Wilder requested some direction from the Group regarding the Appendices. He noted that the current proposed Appendices totaled 295 pages and shared examples of the content and number of pages for each. He shared that there were no materials to include for the proposed Appendix J, thereby meaning that it needed to be deleted and the subsequent appendices re-lettered appropriately. Mr. Wilder then asked if the Group wanted to consider eliminating one potential portion of Appendix F that consisted of 110 pages detailing voting results for Orange County Commissioner elections from 2000 through 2020. The 110 pages had been emailed to Group members as information, and were not specifically discussed at any meetings. He also noted that the documents were public information readily available through the Board of Elections. Group Member Arab commented that she did not think the voting results 70 4 materials had impacted the Group's efforts and discussion and suggested the materials not be included in the Appendices. Group Member Sykes inquired regarding the plan and schedule for presenting the Report to the Board of Commissioners, specifically in light of other items the Board might be discussing at its meetings. Mr. Wilder responded that, from his limited perspective, he expected that the presentation would occur at either the Board of Commissioners' September 2, 2021 Business meeting or at its September 9, 2021 work session. Mr. Wilder noted that the September 2 meeting would likely have a full agenda based on the Board's summer break, along with the current plan for the Board to also consider appointing an individual to fill the vacant Commissioner seat due to Commissioner Mark Dorosin's resignation effective July 31, 2021. He noted that presentation at the September 2 meeting would allow for public comment on the Report item, and that public comment could potentially be extensive. Mr. Wilder further shared that the September 9 work session already had proposed items for discussion, but that the Report may also be considered as a topic for that meeting. He noted that the Board of Commissioners by practice did not receive public comments at work sessions, so the public would not have the opportunity to provide comments at that meeting. However, Mr. Wilder expressed confidence that the Board of Commissioners would welcome significant public comment on this entire topic as discussions proceeded in the future. After some additional discussion, it was agreed to not include the 110 pages in the Appendices, and a reference to the materials would be included under Appendix F. After Group discussion, Group members generally expressed a preference that the Board receive a presentation and discuss the Report at the September 9 work session rather than the September 2 Business meeting since the Business meeting would potentially have a substantial number of other matters on the agenda, and the Co-Chairs would address that interest. The September 9 work session would also allow the newly- appointed Commissioner to be seated and additional time to prepare for the Report discussion. 6. Discussion on Final Approval of the Report This item is addressed in discussion below. 7. Potential Need for Any Additional Follow-up or Meeting Based on Report Status/Revisions Judge Bryan and Group Co-Chair Hazirjian directed discussion to the potential approval of the report and the process the Group wanted to pursue based on the revisions. Mr. Wilder noted that the full Group could potentially reconvene for another meeting to review the revisions and provide final Report approval. Alternatively, the Group could approve 71 5 the Report at the current meeting with the approved revisions and that he and Judge Bryan could work with the Co-Chairs to ensure all revisions occurred as appropriate, thereby allowing the Group to conclude its meetings this evening. Group Member Arab suggested that the Group meet again to approve the meeting summary for the current meeting as well as provide final Report approval. Group members then discussed potential meeting dates, with August 5, 2021 at 7:00 pm being a primary option. Group Member Sykes asked if that meeting would be remote or in- person. Mr. Wilder responded that was an open question and that he had pursued determining what direction the County was pursuing for the month of August, but he did receive a specific answer. He shared that he was aware that the County Manager had approved a few of the County's advisory boards to meet remotely in August. Group Member Sykes made a motion that Group meet on August 5, 2021 to approve the Report and July 22, 2021 Meeting Summary. Group Member Jenkins seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. 8. Plan for Report Presentation to Board of Commissioners The Group addressed this topic earlier in the meeting. 9. Adjourn James Bryan with the County Attorney's Office and Mr. Wilder conferred regarding the Group's normal meeting schedule being on the fourth Thursday of each month, and that an August 5, 2021 meeting would deviate from that schedule, thereby creating a need to call a special meeting. Mr. Wilder commented that, as an alternative, he wondered if the Group could vote to recess the current meeting to be reconvened on August 5t". Mr. Bryan confirmed that was a legal option that could be considered. Group Member Jenkins motioned to recess the current meeting and reconvene the meeting on August 5, 2021 at 7:00 pm via Zoom. Group Co-Chair Mulkey seconded the motion. Group members voted by roll call on the motion to recess the meeting, and it was approved unanimously. The meeting recessed at 8:24 pm. This Meeting Summary was approved at the August 5, 2021 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Reconvened Meeting. 72 COMPILED BY STAFF NOT APPROVED BY BEAG DUE TO NO ADDITIONAL MEETINGS Orange County BOCC Elections Advisory Group Meeting Summary Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 7:00 PM RECONVENED Virtual Meeting from Recessed July 22, 2021 Virtual Meeting Members Present: Kathy Arab, Dr. Jennifer Bremer, Jaazaniah Catterall, Dr. Lisa Hazirjian, Martha Jenkins, Dr. Krishna Mondal, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, Dr. Jonathan Weiler, Rex Williams Members Absent: Dr. Nathan Boucher, Brian Crawford, Susana Dancy, Jenn Sykes Facilitator: Jay Bryan, Retired District Court Judge Staff Present: Greg Wilder from the County Manager's Office, Brian Carson from the Planning & Inspections Department, and Todd McGee, Orange County Community Relations Director Others Present: None 1. Vote to Reconvene the July 22, 2021 Recessed Meeting/Roll Call for Quorum — Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian Group Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian welcomed everyone to the Virtual meeting and expressed appreciation for members' willingness to serve on the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG) and for the work everyone had completed together. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian requested a motion to reconvene the Group from the recessed July 22, 2021 meeting, and noted that the motion would also serve as a roll call of the members present. Group Member Jonathan Weiler made a motion to reconvene the Group from the recessed July 22, 2021 meeting, and that the motion also serve as a roll call of the members present. Group Member Jennifer Bremer seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting and roll call purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. 2. Approval of July 22, 2021 Meeting Summary Group Co-Chair Hazirjian requested a motion to approve the July 22, 2021 Meeting Summary as written and distributed with the agenda package. Group Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey motioned to approve the meeting summary, and Group Member Bremer 73 2 seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the meeting summary was approved unanimously. 3. Review of Any Written Comments Received Mr. Wilder commented that he was not aware of any written communication submitted to the Group or to him regarding the BOCC Elections Advisory Group or its work since the last Group meeting. There was no additional discussion. 4. Review of Revised Draft Report Judge Jay Bryan thanked Group members, the Co-Chairs and staff for their work. He shared that the agenda package for the meeting included an updated "clean" version of the primary 12-page report, as well as all of the Appendices, based on discussion and Group action at the July 22, 2021 meeting. Judge Bryan also noted that a "markup" version of the 12-page report was also included in the agenda package so that Group members could review the specific updates that had occurred since the July 22nd meeting. He then opened discussion on the updated draft Report document and Appendices. Group Member Weiler stated that the updated document looked good and consistent with the discussions at the July 22nd meeting. Group Member Jaaz Catterall agreed, and added that he had also reviewed the seven potential clarification items that Mr. Wilder had previously emailed to Group, as well as the follow-up comments that Group Member Martha Jenkins had provided. He noted that all the clarifications and comments seemed appropriate. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian noted that she had attempted to review the Report from a member of the general public's perspective, and she had some suggestions for consideration. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian suggested, on page 3 of the Report, under Current Voting Method, that the second sentence, beginning with "Two commissioners..." be revised to read, "Two commissioners are elected at-large, meaning candidates must reside somewhere in Orange County, and voters from the entire county vote on these candidates in both primaries and general elections." Group Co-Chair Hazirjian also suggested, in the same paragraph, that the long final sentence beginning "In the primary...", be revised with shorter sentences to read, "Candidates for these seats must reside in the district in which they are running. In primaries, voters living in District One vote only on District One candidates, and voters from District Two vote only on District Two candidates. In general elections, voters from the whole county can vote in both District One and District Two races." Group Member Jenkins, Group Member Kathy Arab and Group Member Krishna Mondal all commented that they thought both suggestions were good changes. 74 3 After some discussion it was decided that rather than voting on each individual proposed revision one-by-one, the Group would only vote on specific individual changes that had some uncertainty/objection, and that all of the other agreed-upon changes that had no uncertainties/objections would be addressed together through one motion and vote. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian continued that on Page 7, in the paragraph beginning "After the presentation," the Group consider the addition of the word "perceived" to read "perceived strengths and weaknesses". She noted that the current wording made it sound like the stated points were all established facts, when some if not all of them could be open to debate. Group members generally indicated agreement with the update. Lastly, Group Co-Chair Hazirjian shared that on Page 8, under the paragraph on at-large districts, she was uncertain of the meaning of the second sentence, beginning with "Those supporting them...." She suggested the Group consider a clarification. It was noted that the word "members" at the end of the sentence should instead be "land", that the word "and" was not needed in the sentence, and that the verb should be "have", not "has." Group Member Catterall suggested a revised sentence read, "Those supporting them touted how they would cover future growth by accounting for areas that have gained in population and would be based on representation of people, not land." Group members accepted this revised sentence. Group Member Bremer noted two minor updates, suggesting that the word "district" be made "districts" on page 7 in the first paragraph under the Current Method. She also suggested the addition of the word "the" on Page 8, under the paragraph on at-large districts to read, "....capture the bulk..." The Group accepted these suggestions. With no other items from Group members, Judge Bryan asked Mr. Wilder to share information on the seven potential clarification items he had previously emailed to Group members. Mr. Wilder noted on page 5 of the Report, middle of the page, in the last bullet point, the word "mention" appeared extraneous and possibly should be deleted. Group Member Jenkins had previously agreed in her follow-up email, and Group members concurred. Mr. Wilder shared, on page 7, under the bullet "Current Method", the last sentence of the first paragraph read, "A more detailed summary of what members identified as the positive aspects of the current method appears below." He wondered if the information actually was below or the sentence needed to be deleted. He noted that Group Member Jenkins had followed up that potentially the language should read "in the meeting summary for June 24th." After some discussion, Group members concurred with revising the wording as suggested by Group Member Jenkins. Mr. Wilder asked, on page 9 after the July 22nd paragraph, if there was any need for Judge Bryan to add a quick summary of the August 5t" meeting (tonight's meeting) in the Report document. Group Member Jenkins had followed up that Judge Bryan could add something brief under a new August 5, 2021 heading that stated something like, "The BEAG made minor edits to the report and then approved the report as edited." Group members concurred with this addition. 75 4 Mr. Wilder commented that on Page 9, in the middle of the page, there was a reference to Appendices L and M. He wondered if the reference to Appendices L and M was applicable at this particular location in the Report since Appendices L and M were Todd McGee's Powerpoint presentation on the SurveyMonkey results, and the printout of the actual survey results from the SurveyMonkey. The paragraph immediately proceeding the Appendices reference did not address Mr. McGee's presentation or the SurveyMonkey results. Mr. Wilder added that he did not see a specific reference to "Appendix K" (the grid) in the Report and wondered if incorporating a reference at the appropriate location was needed. Mr. Wilder also added that he did not see a reference to "Appendix N" (which was part of the SurveyMonkey results) in the Report and wondered if incorporating a reference at the appropriate location was needed. As a potential solution to the items above regarding Appendices K, L, M, and N, Mr. Wilder suggested that the Appendices L and M reference be deleted on page 9. Concurrently, he suggested that on page 6 under June 24t", the potential addition of "(See Appendices K, L, M & N)" at the end of the first paragraph after the word "recommendations." That paragraph referenced both the grid and the survey results, which constituted the content of Appendices K, L, M and N. Group Member Jenkins had previously followed up that Mr. Wilder was correct and that his proposed update was probably the best way to handle these items. Group members concurred with Mr. Wilder and Group Member Jenkins. Moving to two final clarifications, Mr. Wilder noted that the July 22, 2021 Meeting summary currently provided in Appendix C was marked as "DRAFT". Based on the Group approving the Meeting Summary earlier in this meeting, staff would update the document appropriately and replace the current "Draft" in the Report with an "Approved" version in the final Report. Lastly, Mr. Wilder shared that the August 5, 2021 Meeting summary in Appendix C was currently noted as "DRAFT" since it was just a placeholder. Staff planned to compile a document after tonight's meeting to replace this placeholder and it would be marked as "Not Approved Due to No Additional Group Meetings" at the top of the first page. Group Member Jenkins commented that it might be helpful to also add wording to the effect "Compiled by Staff." 5. Approval of Specific Revisions to the Draft Report With no other suggestions or discussion on proposed changes or revisions, Judge Bryan moved the Group forward to considering approval of the updates and revisions that had been discussed. He deferred to Group Co-Chair Hazirjian for the potential consideration of any motions. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian opened the floor for any motions on the updates and revisions that had been previously discussed. Group Member Jenkins motioned to approve all of 76 5 the changes as had been discussed and concurred with earlier in the meeting. Group Member Bremer seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. 6. Approval of Revised Final Report With no other aspects of the Report to discuss, Group Co-Chair Hazirjian opened the floor for any motions on approving the Report as revised. Group Member Weiler motioned to approve the revised BEAG Report. Group Member Catterall seconded the motion. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder to call the names of Group members for voting purposes. Group members voted by roll call on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. 7. Potential Need for Any Additional Follow-up or Meeting Based on Report Status/Revisions Group Co-Chair Hazirjian commented that the Group had completed its work and there was not a need for any additional "business" meetings. It was noted that the Group members might pursue gathering on a social basis if circumstances allowed. Group Co- Chair Hazirjian asked Mr. Wilder if he would send an email to all Group members, and specifically members who could not be at this meeting, to let them know there was a potential interest in gathering on a social basis to celebrate the Group's work. There was some discussion on the timing of the presentation of the Report to the Board of Commissioners, and it was noted that Group members would be invited to join with Judge Bryan and the Co-Chairs to attend that Board of Commissioners meeting if they wished. Group Co-Chair Mulkey expressed his appreciation to Judge Bryan for facilitating the Group's work and discussions. Group Co-Chair Hazirjian concurred, and noted that she appreciative that conversations among all Group members had been productive. Judge Bryan thanked the Group members for their service and hard work, and expressed appreciation to Mr. Wilder, Mr. Carson, Mr. McGee, and the County Attorney's Office for their efforts on behalf of the Group. Group Member Bremer also expressed her appreciation to staff. 8. Adjourn Group Member Mondal motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 pm. Group Member Arab seconded the motion. Group members voted on the motion to adjourn, and it was approved unanimously. 87 Popular Government SPRING 2001 •VOLUME 66,NUMBER 3 COVER ARTICLE 2 Redistricting for Local Governments after the 2000 Census �- Robert P.Joyce For some North Carolina cities,counties,and school systems,the results of the 2000 census call for redistricting.Is your unit affected?If so,what must you do? And how do you take race into account? ESSAY z 16 The Public Policy Challenges of Payday Lending Page 2 Micbael A.Stegman Some hardworking people in North Carolina are becoming"hooked"on high- interest,short-term "payday" loans,taking them out back-to-back from the same lender or borrowing from one lender to pay off another.The author suggests four steps that policy makers,regulators,and mainstream banks could take to protect consumers. FEATURE ARTICLES 23 Citizen Participation in Local Government Budgeting Maureen Berner 'yam Y Do North Carolina local governments value citizen participation in budgeting, Page 16 and if so,what do they do to encourage it?A recent survey of the state's cities and counties revealed a variety of views and practices. 31 Strengthening Civic Education: Three Strategies for ` School Officials Susan Leigb Flinspach North Carolina policy makers have affirmed the importance of preparing young people for their role as American citizens.Yet in a 1998 assessment,just 20 percent of the students in the Southeast demonstrated solid academic performance in civics.The author lays out three cost-effective strategies for Z promoting civic education in the state's schools. Page 23 DEPARTMENTS 39 From the MPA Program ' Emergency Department Screening for Domestic Violence Emily Gamble Screening in hospital emergency departments might provide a clearer picture of the prevalence and the impact of domestic violence.Existing and past programs 3 in Massachusetts and North Carolina are instructive about what makes screening successful. 44 Point/Counterpoint When Can a State Be Sued? z William Van Alstyne Page 31 A reader takes issue with a Popular Government article about the U.S.Supreme Court's recent decisions on states'immunity from private suit. ON THE COVER 46 At the Institute TOP.NEM&OBSERVER/JOHN R07ET From Rigorous Researcher to Fine Art Photographer: Stevens H. Clarke BOTTOM.NEWS&OBSERVER/HARRY LYNCH MAPS COURTESY OF THE NORTNCAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Incredible Productivity amid Calm Orderliness:William A. Campbell 88 P O P U L A R G O V E R N M E N T COVER ARTICLE Redistricting for P�0� Local Governments after the 2000 Census so o'13 , Robert P. Joyce ith the results of the 2000 cen- Cb eo sus in hand, more than one hundred North Carolina cities, ' a counties,and school systems may face the politically loaded challenge of redrawing their election districts to comply with the one-person/one-vote requirement of the U.S.Constitution. Z y- FF R A N � ^� Through the 1990s the North Caro- r,l �..m r lina General Assembly drew and redrew Must you consider NAF* redistricting at all? � �'� the state's twelve congressional election districts four times, as successful chal- Whether a jurisdiction must consider I ti " K. lenges under the Voting Rights Act of redistricting turns on the sort of electoral 9� 7 ow " ' ' s 1965 and the Equal Protection Clause of system it uses. the U.S. Constitution occurred one after R` C.Y another.No city,county,or school sys- Do you elect all your tem wants that to be its fate in the first members at large? Tw FEW.1 decade of the 2000s. If all the members of the city council,the 010ith The responsibility for drawing new county commission,or the board of edu- ' districts for elections to Congress and to cation are elected at large—that is, if the state House of Representatives and everyone in the city, the county, or the MIN Senate lies with the General Assembly. school system votes for all the mem- A~ em- 3 ' , Y A..�4. NEW, The responsibility for drawing new dis- bers—then you do not have to redistrict. MADMIN tricts for local government rests with the There are no districts to redraw. You All city councils,the county commissions, need not finish reading this article.If you ' off—Sp,Yv S T and the school boards. elect board members from districts, Compared with the state legislature, however,you should go on to the next ' MS'.I�I IIS # mi �141d ? . local governments may receive less at- question. , tention when they face redistricting,but Tj the questions of law and the practical rt ®■o. '' problems will be just as challenging. Yr��a 16% _ %' + ,r3 , i p,r This article describes those questions , ■ and problems,and gives some answers. rar � LPU r „ 1 } 4'J19 171 The author is an Institute of Government +I. faculty member who specializes in election law.Contact him at joyce@iogmail.iog. i - '% 4, r unc.edu. _ r �#•a "� .�. x 4_0 Yo .. ., a .'iwr -. ieYl kiirl r* -Y■■r - ' FII■ .,� �f■IY�YY`}. Ixrt H� :ill AL * 'Y; �f Yk ,lot# 4 Y .Jkyi - TR 4. Y14 2 POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING 200I _ _ } „f _ 89 +�T What kinds of districts do you have: Do you have the How did your use of electoral mere residency districts or true districts come about? N electoral districts? necessary power? The presumptive method of elections is The North Carolina statutes for cities If your jurisdiction has single-member or at large. For most of North Carolina's �. and counties permit three types of dis- blended districts, you must consider modern history,nearly all the members tricts, with very different redistricting redistricting.As discussed later,you may of city councils,county commissions,and consequences.' not have to redistrict.That will depend school boards were elected that way. 1 .- Residency districts.In the first type of on the relative population changes Beginning in the 1980s,however,there district, candidates must reside in among your districts since 1990. But if was a movement away from at-large the district from which they wish to run, you must redistrict, do you have the elections to elections by districts,spurred Fi but all the voters of the jurisdiction vote authority to do so? The answer to that primarily by the need to comply with the for that seat.This type is commonly re- question generally is yes. The General federal Voting Rights Act of 1965(again, z ferred to as a"residency district."As with Assembly has passed special boundary- discussed in more detail later). Today, : at-large voting (of which this is a vari- revision statutes for cities,counties,and 103 jurisdictions use single-member or 09 ant),there is no requirement to redistrict school systems,4 but in any jurisdiction's blended districts and so are subject to after the 2000 census?In fact,for coun- particular situation, the answer may redistricting(see Table 1,page 4). ties a statutory provision requires a local turn on how the use of electoral districts There are three ways in which elec- o act of the General Assembly to change (and the current actual boundaries) toral districts may have come into use V residency-district boundaries.3 came about. for a city or a county,but only two ways z Single-member districts.In the second for a school system. First, the General � type of district,candidates must reside in ,., Assembly may have moved a city,a coun- IPA M the district from which they wish to run, " �" ty,or a school system from at-large elec- L and only the voters of the district can '- ,� tions to district elections through a local vote for that seat.Commonly referred to act. The General Assembly passes two as a "single-member district," this is the - kinds of acts,public and local.A public 4 type to which the greatest redistricting _ , " i ^r act applies to the entire state generally, attention must be paid after the 2000 cen- and it is the most common kind of enact- sus. The trend in recent years has been ment. About 90 percent of bills intro- for jurisdictions to move from at-large r duced in any session of the General elections to single-member districts. It Assembly are public bills.' A local act has been spurred,as discussed later,by a applies only to one or more named cities, drive to create districts that provide mi- counties, or other units of government. nority populations with greater opportu- North Carolina's Constitution places ' nities to elect candidates of their choice. _ some limitations on the subjects that Blended districts. The third type of district is a variant of residency districts. In this type the candidate must reside in the district from which he or she wishes to run,and all the voters of the jurisdic- A .WT# F tion vote for that seat in the general elec- tion,just as in regular residency districts. ,,,,, In this third type,however,in the prima- ry election,only the voters of the district ,.,_ vote. So this type of district resembles a 1 �+'` v„ rr single-member district in the primary election and an at-large arrangement in + the general election. This type requires the same attention after the 2000 census that the single-member district does. Y �- If the election of your board members s - is from residency districts, you do not have to redistrict, and you may stop reading this article. If, however, you have single-member or blended districts, you should go on to the next question. - POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING ZOO1 3 90 TABLE 1 . NORTH CAROLINA JURISDICTIONS SUBJECT TO REDISTRICTING Subject to Redistricting Not Subject to Redistricting COUNTIES(30) CITIES(41) SCHOOL BOARDS(32) COUNTIES USING CITIES USING RESIDENCY Anson Albemarle Alexander RESIDENCY DISTRICTS(24) DISTRICTS(26) Bladen Benson Anson Bertie Angier Camden Cary Beaufort Brunswick Archdale Carteret(blended) Charlotte Bladen Chatham Atkinson Caswell Clinton Caswell Cherokee Ayden Chowan Dunn Charlotte- Currituck Belhaven Columbus Edenton Mecklenburg Dare Bessemer City Craven Elizabeth City Cumberland Franklin Bladenboro Cumberland Enfield Duplin Gaston Calabash Duplin Fayetteville Durham Gates Cherryville Edgecombe Fremont Edenton-Chowan Henderson Concord Forsyth Goldsboro Edgecombe Hertford Durham Granville Greensboro Franklin Hyde Eden Guilford Greenville Granville Johnston Fletcher Halifax Henderson Guilford Macon Gastonia Harnett High Point Harnett Moore Hickory Lee Jacksonville Hickory City Northampton Lewiston-Woodville Lenoir Kings Mountain Iredell-Statesville Fender Lincolnton Mecklenburg Lake Waccamaw Lenoir Randolph Morganton Montgomery Laurinburg Madison Rutherford Mt.Airy Nash Lexington Martin Scotland Sanford Pamlico Longview Montgomery Surry Shelby Pasquotank Lumberton Nash–Rocky Mount Watauga Southport Pitt Mooresville Newton– Wake Stanley Robeson New Bern Conover City Wayne Trinity Sampson Plymouth Pamlico Valdese Vance Princeville Pitt Weddington Washington Raleigh Robeson COUNTIES,CITIES,AND Wilson Randleman Rockingham SCHOOL BOARDS USING Wayne Reidsville Union AT-LARGE VOTING Roanoke Rapids Vance Rocky Mount Wake All the rest Siler City Wilson Smithfield Winston-Salem/ Statesville Forsyth St. Pauls Tarboro may be covered by local Thomasville lenged the at-large system in county,by following procedures laid out acts, but none of them Williamston court on some legal basis—most in the statutes, to change a number of Wilson relate to the election of likely as a violation of the aspects of its elections, including the city council members, Winston-Salem Voting Rights Act of 1965—and number of members of the governing county commissioners, either prevailed in the lawsuit, board, the length of their terms, and or school board mem- thereby obtaining a court order, whether they are elected at large or from bers. Cities,counties,and school systems or reached a court-approved settlement districts.6 There is no comparable home- are creatures of the General Assembly, with the jurisdiction,resulting in a con- rule provision for school systems. and the General Assembly is free to sent decree signed by the challengers,the impose on any of them an electoral sys- jurisdiction,and the judge. How were the particular boundaries tem of its choosing. Third,the city or the county(but not for your current districts set? Second, the city, the county, or the a school system) may have voluntarily As with the use of electoral districts,the school system may have moved from at- moved from at-large elections to district current boundaries for your districts large elections to district elections elections, using "home rule" powers may have been drawn in one of three through a court order or a consent granted by the General Assembly. The ways. First, they may have been set in decree.That is,someone may have chal- home-rule statutes permit a city or a the local act that moved you from at- 4 POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING 200I 91 Cal 0 Z large to district voting in the first place. population imbalances after the census if If the boundaries were set by action of Second, they may have been set by the the local act does not provide a method the governing board,then you may pro- court order or the consent decree that for revising them.9 ceed under the boundary-revision statutes. moved you to district voting.Third,they If the boundaries were set by court may have been set by action of the gov- order or consent decree,you need to check May the General Assembly do the erning board.In the third case,the city the document to determine whether it pro- redistricting for you? council,the county commission, or the vides a method for revising the bound- Yes,if it is willing to do so,except per- school board acted under the authority aries.There are three possibilities.First, haps in the case of districts set by court of statutes specifically giving it this line- the document may set the boundaries order.The General Assembly retains the drawing authority.7 but provide no method for revision. In power to draw your district lines by that case you must consider whether you local act. If it exercised that power, it What difference does it make how need to go to the court that entered the could handle problems that might prove the current boundaries were set? order or the decree to get an order per- tricky for the local board,like assigning Your authority to change the current mitting you to revise boundaries.Second, incumbents to districts or shortening boundaries may depend on how they the document may both set the bound- current incumbents'terms.For more dis- were put into place. If the boundaries aries and provide a method for revision. cussion of this subject, see the later sec- were set by local act, then cities and If so, you must follow that method. tion on incumbency protection. counties are specifically authorized by Third,the document may set the bound- the boundary-revision statutes to revise aries and explicitly provide that they Are you required to redistrict? them to correct for population imbal- may be revised to correct for population ances after the 2000 census.'For school imbalances after a census,in which case Population imbalance triggers the obli- systems,the relevant statute says that the you may proceed under the boundary- gation to redistrict. Through much of board may revise them to correct for revision statutes.10 American history, the courts did not POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING 200I 5 92 impose an obligation to redistrict even short of the ideal district.Now add those mine whether it would be lawful to hold when populations became extremely two percentages.If the total is 10 percent the next election without revising dis- imbalanced.After the 1960 census,for or more,you should redistrict. tricts to correct population imbalances."17 example, of twenty states retaining the The 10 percent rule is court made,not For counties there is no requirement in same number of members in the U.S. statutory,and its effect is a highly techni- the North Carolina statutes that they cor- House of Representatives as they had cal,legal one.15 It serves as the method rect a population imbalance after the been allocated after the 1950 census,not by which courts allocate the burden of census; there is only authorization for one redistricted. Among them were proof in a lawsuit regarding whether a them to do so.The statute provides that Georgia,which had last redistricted in districting plan violates the one-person/ the county commissioners"may by reso- 1931; Colorado and Connecticut, in one-vote principle.A deviation of 10 per- lution redefine the electoral districts."18 1921; Idaho and Montana, in 1917; cent or more automatically establishes a By contrast,the statute for school systems Louisiana, in 1912; and New Hamp- prima facie violation.The burden of proof appears to require redistricting: "The shire,in 1881. is then on the city, the county, or the local board of education shall revise The issue came to a head in two U.S. school system to justify the deviation by electoral district boundaries from time Supreme Court cases in the early 1960s. showing a rational and legitimate policy to time as provided in this subsection."19 In the first,Baker v. Carr,11 the Court for Even in the absence of a statutory the first time recognized that population requirement,however,city council mem- imbalances in electoral districts may vio- ��dvancing the bers,county commissioners,and school notion that came late the Equal Protection Clause of the board members are obligated by the Fourteenth Amendment.In the second, oaths they take (in which they pledge to Reynolds v.Sims,12 the Court for the first Ato be called one uphold the U.S. Constitution)—and time held a legislative districting plan to man, one vote" (later, should be motivated by the fear of liabil- be unconstitutional on the basis of popu- ity in a lawsuit—to redraw districts lation imbalance.In that case the thirty- One person, one vote"), promptly to redress imbalances. five districts of the Alabama Senate varied the Court said that "the in population from 15,417 to 634,864. right of suffrage can be Do you count people not eligible The spread in the state House of Repre- to vote.' sentatives was even greater. Advancing denied by a debasement Yes. Provisions in the North Carolina the notion that came to be called "one or dilution of the weight statutes call for substantial equality man,one vote" (later, "one person,one among districts based on total popula- vote"),the Court said that "the right of of a citizens vote just as tion. For cities the statute specifies "the suffrage can be denied by a debasement effectively as by wholly same number of persons as nearly as or dilution of the weight of a citizen's prohibiting the free possible";for counties,the statute speaks vote just as effectively as by wholly pro- of assigning"the population"to districts hibiting the free exercise of the fran- exercise of the franchise." that are "as nearly equal as practicable"; chise."13 These early cases dealt with and for school systems, the statute redistricting for elections to state legisla- addresses "correcting population imbal- tures. The Court soon made clear that for the inequality in districts—be they ances.1120 In each case the statute clearly the one-person/one-vote principle ap- old districts that have become unbalanced contemplates consideration of total pop- plied to local elections as well.14 or new districts that have been drawn ulation,which will include some people with such a deviation. This is a difficult who are not eligible to vote.The largest How do you know whether you should task. If the maximum deviation is less group will be people under eighteen redistrict after the 2000 census? than 10 percent, on the other hand,the years of age. In determining whether there is substan- courts consider the population disparity To comply with these statutes,cities, tial equality in population among dis- minimal, and the city,the county,or the counties,and school systems should use tricts,courts routinely apply a "10 per- school system "is entitled to a presump- the census numbers that count all resi- cent rule." Local jurisdictions can use tion that the apportionment plan was dents,whether or not they are eligible to this rule too. It works like this: Divide the result of an honest and good faith ef- vote.That is,in figuring whether there is the new population by the total number fort to construct districts. . .as nearly of a 10 percent deviation,you should count of seats.That gives you the "ideal" pop- equal population as is practicable."16 people under the age of eighteen and ulation per seat. Next, apply the new nonresident citizens,including military census numbers to your old election dis- Are you required to redistrict if the personnel assigned locally and inmates in tricts. Look at the new population of numbers show an imbalance of state correctional or medical facilities.21 your most populous district,and figure 10 percent or higher? In the mid-1990s the voters of the percentage by which it exceeds the Yes, even though not all the statutes Mecklenburg County approved changes ideal population.Next,look at the pop- directly say so. For cities the applicable in the methods of election of their coun- ulation of the least populous district, statute explicitly requires city councils to ty commissioners and school board and figure the percentage by which it is review the 2000 census data to "deter- members, moving from at-large elec- 6 POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING 2-00I 93 tions to a mix of at-large and single- council members, the county commis- Ven in the absence member districts, using the same dis- sioners,and the school board members. Ement, of a statutory require- tricts for both the commissioners and the For cities and school systems,no partic- school board members. The deviation ular procedures are specified.For coun- . . . city council between the most populous district and ties the statute sets out a requirement members, county commis- the least populous district was 8.33 per- that the commissioners find as a fact cent,well within the 10 percent rule.But "whether there is substantial inequality sioners, and school board if the comparison had been based solely of population among the districts.1121 members are obligated by on voting-age population (that is, not The commissioners should by formal the oaths they take (in counting people under age eighteen),the action make such a finding. For "sub- deviation would have been 16.17 per- stantial inequality" the board may rely which they pledge to cent. This difference arises because the on the 10 percent rule,described earlier. uphold the U.S. Consti- proportion of people under eighteen is If the commissioners find that there is a higher among nonwhites than among substantial inequality, they may draw tution)—and should be whites,so districts with high concentra- new districts. motivated by the fear of liability in a lawsuit—to redraw districts promptly to redress imbalances. voTrr? Left,a precinct official assists a voter P11.R)(J with disabilities. Below,a young mother votes while her son looks on. y - o 0 tions of nonwhites will have a lower pro- Should you embody the new portion of voting-age people than dis- districts in an ordinance or a tricts with high concentrations of whites. resolution or some other action? In a lawsuit the claim was put forward For counties the statute requires that that this 16.17 percent deviation among the redefined districts be set out in a the voting age population violated the resolution.24 For cities and school sys- one-person/one-vote principle.The fed- tems,the statutes do not specify partic- eral district court agreed,but the federal ular forms. Cities may employ either circuit court of appeals overturned the ordinances or resolutions; if the elec- district court's decision,holding that the tion districts were embodied in an ordi- constitutional requirements are satisfied nance the last time they were drawn, by deviations under 10 percent based on the city should stick to the ordinance total population as reflected in the cen- format. School boards do not have the sus.22 This federal appeals court decision authority to adopt ordinances,so a res- cites with favor the North Carolina olution is the proper format. total-population statutes. For cities and counties, there are direct statutory requirements that city o What procedures are required? and county maps show the boundaries.21 There is no corresponding requirement 0 The statutes clearly place the authority for school systems;nonetheless,a map is for redistricting in the hands of the city imperative. z POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING ZOO1 7 94 Should you have public hearings? The answer to this question will depend on local circumstances. Cities,counties, and school systems are all free to adopt additional procedures if they wish.They might, for example, appoint a citizen advisory board to study the redistricting question and propose new boundaries. The danger, of course, is that the advi- sory board will come up with a plan that _ the governing board does not like, and the result is a political problem.The board might conduct public hearings or in some other way establish procedures for pub- lic comment. - - There is no requirement that the board obtain public input,but doing so may be a very good idea for two reasons.. First, it demonstrates that the board is _ responsive to the people on an issue �! as fundamental as the election of their representatives. Second, a hearing (or another input mechanism)may be help- ful in achieving preclearance of the redis- tricting plan for cities, counties, and school systems subject to the require- ments of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,discussed later. A public hearing,if held,will likely be most effective if a couple of alternative plans are available for discussion.They will help focus the comments and pro- vide a meaningful context. Citizens at- tending should be permitted to present two great advantages. First, if they are mittee too must be open.Work by staff their own plans. carefully chosen, they bring expertise. on the project is not subject to the sta- They should have skills in assessing the tute,however. Should you hire outside consultants? census data that exceed the skills likely There are valid reasons to consider hir- to be found on the board or the staff. Can you keep drafts of tentative ing outside consultants and valid reasons Also,they should be thoroughly familiar plans secret? not to do so.In some instances,of course, with the legal considerations involved in Not completely,no.The North Carolina redistricting will not be necessary at the one-person/one-vote principle, dis- Supreme Court has interpreted the state's all—where population change has not cussed earlier, and in the tricky notions public records law,27 which gives citizens been great and the 10 percent rule is not of racial fairness and equal protection, the right to see and copy most documents violated. In some other instances, even discussed later. Second,consultants can made or received in the course of the gov- where the imbalance does exceed 10 per- lend the process a sense of fairness—they ernment's business, to include prelimi- cent, it will be possible with relatively are outsiders brought in, not insiders nary drafts of documents.28 At what straightforward effort to bring the dis- protecting themselves—and they can be point a working document becomes a tricts into compliance.The duty to come blamed if things go wrong. preliminary draft subject to the require- up with a proposal can be delegated to ments of public inspection is a matter not the manager or to the city's or county's Can you consider redistricting in fully settled in the law.29 The safe proce- planning staff,for instance,to work in closed sessions? dure is to assume that once a redistricting conjunction with the unit's attorney. No.The open meetings law requires that map is recognizable as such,it is proba- There is a political bomb waiting to ex- meetings of public bodies be open to the bly a public record. plode,however,if the redrawing necessi- public,except for particular subjects set tates pitting incumbents against one out in the statute.26 Redistricting is not May you protect incumbents? another, and the manager or the staff an exception.If the board sets up a com- Yes.The U.S. Supreme Court has recog- may not wish to be involved. mittee of board members to work on nized "incumbency protection, at least Consultants,on the other hand,bring redistricting,the meetings of that com- in the limited form of avoiding contests 8 POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING 2-00I 95 FRIENDS OF THE D Famdy Literacy Maglic Tree � II c or many jurisdictions, between incumbent[s], as a legitimate z state goal.""Expecting incumbent mem- taking race Into hers of a city,county,or school govern- account in drawing How do you take race Ing board not to look out for their own in terestsisaskingtoomuch. new district lines will be into account? It is fully defensible to make every the most difficult part of For many jurisdictions,taking race into effort to ensure that,after redistricting, the redistricting process. account in drawing new district lines no two incumbents share a district. will be the most difficult part of the Demographics and other considerations Race is typically a politically redistricting process. Race is typically a may make it unavoidable,however,and challenging issue, and in politically challenging issue,and in the in that case, incumbents will face one politics of redistricting, it is especially another.Board Member A,elected from the politics of redistricting, challenging.As difficult as the politics of District 1,may find himself,after redis- it is especially challenging. the matter are,however,the legal issues tricting,residing in District 2,along with involved may be even more difficult. Board Member B.In that case,until the next election, District 1 will have no Why are the legal issues so difficult? member living within it and no one In 2001 the nation finds itself at the directly representing it.An effort should election,may find himself with a choice uneasy intersection of two important be made to avoid this undesirable situa- down the line.If the District 2 seat is up legal standards:the Voting Rights Act of tion,but it may occur.In no event,how- at the next election, someone will be 1965 and the Equal Protection Clause of ever,may the redistricting work to short- elected from District 2 in that election. the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. en any member's term' unless the redis- Board Member A may choose to file to Constitution.The law under the Voting tricting is done by the General Assembly run then(perhaps against Board Member Rights Act has been developing for more through a local act. B, who has remained in District 2 all than three decades, and jurisdictions A problem may arise when, because along,or perhaps against someone else). faced with redistricting after the 1990 of staggered four-year terms,only some If Board Member A wins, then he be- census focused on its requirements as a members of the board will be up for comes the representative from District 2, primary legal concern. In the 1990s, reelection at the election immediately fol- and a vacancy is created in District 1.If however, a body of law began develop- lowing redistricting and others will be up Board Member A loses,then he remains ing under the Equal Protection Clause.It two years after that. In that instance in office for two more years until his orig- is not yet fully formed,but it has drawn Board Member A, whose residence is inal term expires.At that point he has no directly into question the former legal redistricted from District 1 to District 2 seat to run for,since he resides in District interpretations of the requirements of but who is not up for election at the next 2 and the District 2 seat is not up then. the Voting Rights Act. POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING ZOO1 9 96 Table 2. North Carolina Counties Subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Anson Edgecombe Hoke Person Beaufort Franklin Jackson Pitt Bertie Gaston Lee Robeson Bladen Gates Lenoir Rockingham Camden Granville Martin Scotland Caswell Greene Nash Union Chowan Guilford Northampton Vance Cleveland Halifax Onslow Washington Craven Harnett Pasquotank Wayne Cumberland Hertford Perquimans Wilson Below,college students register voters Note:All cities and school systems within these counties also are subject to the pre- during a campus drive.Redistricting clearance requirement. will not require already-registered voters to re-register. Are you covered by the Voting Rights Act? Yes, you are covered by the Voting Rights Act,along with every other part of the United States,but that answer is a little misleading. Frequently when peo- ple say, "We are covered by the Voting F Rights Act," or "We are a Voting Rights Act county,"they are using shorthand to mean that their jurisdiction is covered by a particular part of the act known as Section 5.32 Section 5 applies only to cer- tain governmental units that had espe- cially low voter-registration rates when the Voting Rights Act was passed. In effect,those jurisdictions were presumed a m to have been discriminating.Most South- k ern states are entirely under Section 5, but only forty North Carolina counties are subject to it. To prevent the introduction of new Z election procedures that adversely affect counties,including cities and school sys- change makes it less likely that African- minority voting,governmental units sub- tems.) Examples include a switch to or Americans or other minorities will be able ject to Section 5 must obtain approval from an at-large election system, any to elect candidates of their choice. This from the U.S.Department of justice be- change in the term of office for an elected standard is known as "retrogression.1114 fore making any change in election pro- position,municipal annexations,moving The question, in effect, is whether the cedures.The approval procedure is com- of polling places or precinct lines, new change makes things worse for minori- monly referred to as "preclearance."33 office hours for the board of elections, ties. The department objects to few conversion from paper ballots to voting changes,but it is most likely to challenge In a Section 5 county,do you have to machines, and, of course, redistricting. certain kinds of changes, including submit your redistricting plan for Because any statewide election law or annexations, changes in the method of preclearance? procedure change obviously affects those election (from district to at-large elec- Yes.Any change in election procedures in forty counties, all such changes must tions,for example),and alterations in dis- any of those forty counties must be pre- be precleared before they can become trict lines.An objection from the depart- cleared. (For the identities of the coun- effective. ment may be the start of negotiations ties,see Table 2.The requirement applies The justice Department reviews each between the governmental unit and feder- to all governmental units within these such change to determine whether the al officials to alter the proposed change to IO POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING 200I 97 Figure Districting Plan Proposed in 1993 for Election of Brunswick County Commissioners District 1 f, for example, 30 The plaintiffs in a 1993 voting rights case �2 proposed this districting plan for election percent of a county's r� of Brunswick County commissioners. population consists of District 1 was drawn to create a district African-Americans but with an African-American majority. The court rejected the plan. none have ever been elected to the five-member board of commissioners, that is strong evidence that U N S W I C K o U N Y the method of election is discriminatory. i The two issues at the heart of such law- suits are the extent to which African- Americans have been elected to office under the election system being chal- lenged and whether voting is polarized along racial lines. If, for example, 30 percent of a county's population consists of African-Americans but none have ever been elected to the five-member board of commissioners,that is strong Source:Michael Crowell,of Tharrington Smith,Raleigh,LLP,attorneys for Brunswick County in the 1993 case evidence that the method of election is discriminatory.If,in addition,statistical make it acceptable. If a change is made Once the Justice Department makes analysis shows that whites seldom vote without department approval or without its final decision on a local preclearance for African-American candidates in that ever having been submitted for preclear- request, the notification letter must be county—generally the case in North ance, the department is likely to go to filed by the local attorney with the Carolina—then the court will need to court to stop its implementation. North Carolina Office of Administrative consider requiring an election method Hearings for publication in the North that provides African-Americans with an How does the submission work? Carolina Register. opportunity to elect candidates without State law sets the responsibility for sub- depending on white support.The leading mitting changes for preclearance.15 The What if you are not in a U.S.Supreme Court decision setting out State Board of Elections is responsible for Section 5 county? these Section 2 requirements,Thornburg submitting statewide changes that affect You still are covered by the major part of v. Gingles,38 involved North Carolina's all governmental units in the state. City the Voting Rights Act,Section 2.17 Section multimember districts for electing mem- and county attorneys are responsible 2 prohibits all states,cities,counties,and bers of the General Assembly. for those that apply only to their jurisdic- other political units from setting voting Traditionally in North Carolina,most tions. Changes concerning school sys- qualifications or using election procedures governing boards were elected at large. tems are to be submitted by the board that deny or abridge the voting rights of In cities, counties, and school districts attorneys. minorities.A person who believes that any that have significant African-American The rules for making a preclearance governmental unit has such a qualifica- populations but a sparse record of elect- submission are found in the Code of tion or procedure may sue in federal court ing African-Americans to the board, Federal Regulations.36 No change can go to have it invalidated under Section 2. Section 2 lawsuits—or threats of Section into effect until it has been precleared. The most common subject matter for 2 lawsuits—have been used to force a Once the submission is made,the justice these lawsuits is a challenge to methods conversion to a different method of elec- Department has sixty days either to of conducting elections that make it tion.The courts'usual remedy has been object to the change (as retrogressive) or harder for African-Americans to be elect- to require the jurisdiction to switch to to ask for more information. ed,especially the use of at-large elections. a system in which it is divided into sever- POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING ZOOI II 98 l The Original Districting Plan for Electing North Carolina's Representatives to the U.S. House, 1991 (following the 1990 census) 5 6 1 11 12 4 2 3 9 7 :F:< 2. The Second Districting Plan, 1992 12 5 1 11 6 4 2 3 9 3 1 al districts and only the voters of each shaped districts(see Figure 1,page 11). the advice described earlier, commonly district vote for the seat representing This common advice came into ques- given for complying with Section 2 of the that area—single-member districts. By tion—and the creation of the oddly Voting Rights Act. creating districts with predominantly shaped districts slowed down dramati- That districting plan was submitted African-American populations,the court cally—when another North Carolina for preclearance,and the justice Depart- can give African-Americans a much bet- districting case came to the U.S.Supreme ment disapproved the plan. It would ter opportunity to elect candidates of Court in the mid-1990s.That case,Shaw have been possible,the justice Depart- their own choosing than they would have v.Reno,39 looked at the intersection of the ment said, to create two districts with with an at-large election system. requirements of Section 2 of the Voting African-American majorities, and the Because of the outcomes in these Rights Act and the Equal Protection failure to do was a violation of Section 2. cases,advice given to units of local gov- Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So in 1992 the General Assembly ernment typically ran like this:If you can adopted a second plan,creating two dis- draw a district boundary for creating a What happened in the Shaw case? tricts with African-American majorities, district with an African-American ma- In 1991, following the national census districts 1 and 12, both with very odd jority, do so. Then draw the other dis- of 1990,the General Assembly drew the shapes (see Map 2).The justice Depart- tricts around that district to fit. If you districts for electing the state's twelve ment approved the new plan,but several can draw two districts with African- members of the U.S. House of Repre- white citizens sued, claiming that the American majorities, do so, and draw sentatives, creating 11 that had white General Assembly had made an uncon- the remaining districts to fit. Following majorities and 1, district 1,that had an stitutional use of race in drawing the this advice,cities,counties, and school African-American majority(see Map 1). lines.In Shaw v. Reno the U.S. Supreme systems sometimes came up with oddly In so doing,the legislature was applying Court held that the use of race in draw- I2 POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING 200I 99 ". The Third Districting Plan, 1997 12 5 \ 1 11 6 4 2 3 9 7 Map 4. The Fourth Districting Plan, 1998 5 1 11 12 11 6 4 2 3 9 There has been continuing controversy over the North Carolina General Assembly's efforts to create one or more congressional Source:1991 and 1992 maps adapted districts with African-American majorities. The result has been 7 from maps in Popular Government archives; 1997 and 1998 maps adapted from maps the drawing of four different maps in the 1990s.Districts 1 and available at vvvvvv.ncga.state.nc.us/ 12 have been the focus of much of the attention. Red istricting/Dist_Plans/distplanshome.htmI ing district lines may in fact constitute a sembly did so(its fourth 1990s plan—see (districts in which a minority group is violation of the Equal Protection Clause map 4),but it appealed the order striking the majority) will be considered as of the Fourteenth Amendment,especial- down the 1997 plan.The Supreme Court strong evidence of unlawful considera- ly when, to achieve African-American sent the matter back to the federal district tion of race.As the Supreme Court said, majority districts,the shape of the dis- court to consider again,and in early 2000 tricts must be drawn very oddly. the district court once more declared it [W]e believe that reapportionment The matter came back to the Supreme unconstitutional.The state appealed,and is one area in which appearances Court in 1996,and in Shaw v.Hunt,40 the in April 2001 the Supreme Court found do matter. A reapportionment Court held that the districting plan did in the plan constitutional,holding that polit- plan that includes in one district fact violate the Equal Protection Clause. ical considerations,not race,were domi- individuals who belong to the As a result,in 1997 the General Assembly nant in drawing the plan. same race, but who are otherwise adopted yet another plan(its third),with widely separated by geographical one majority African-American district, What do the Shaw decisions mean and political boundaries,and who district 1,and one district nearly evenly for you in drawing districts? may have little in common with split but majority white, district 12 (see The Shaw decisions mean at least two one another but the color of their Map 3). The Justice Department ap- things. First, there is a violation of the skin, bears an uncomfortable re- proved the new plan,but in early 1998 a Equal Protection Clause if a board, in semblance to political apartheid.42 federal district court struck it down as drawing the district lines,makes race the violating the Equal Protection Clause and "dominant and controlling" considera- What do you do? ordered the General Assembly to redraw tion.41 Second,the creation of very oddly The task for cities,counties,and school the lines once again. The General As- shaped "majority-minority districts" systems in areas with sizeable minority POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING ZOOI 13 100 I. a populations is difficult. To satisfy your Section 2 obligations, in drawing your a districts, you must take race into ac- count to determine whether the African- American population is found in areas z that can be incorporated into districts obeying normal district-drawing princi- by the term "P.L. 94-171 data," after ples:they are reasonably compact,they Public Law 94-171, which set out the incorporate natural dividing lines such information-reporting requirements.The as major roads,and they bring together bureau will produce paper maps show- people with common interests. If you ing the information. can do that,it is probably lawful to takeO satisfy your Section The data can be used in conjunction race into account. If you cannot, then 2 obligations, in with what are known as TIGER(Topo- you must not go further to try to draw logically Integrated Geographic Encod- majority-minority districts.Creating non- drawing your dis- ing and Referencing) files.43 The TIGER compact districts for the sake of achiev- tricts, you must take race files are not maps.They contain digital ing majority-minority districts is almost data describing geographic features such certainly, in the words of the Supreme into account to determine as railroads, rivers, lakes, political Court, allowing race to become the whether the African- boundaries,and census statistical bound- dominant and controlling factor. aries.A jurisdiction can purchase the rel- The task is especially great for cities, American population is evant TIGER files from the bureau for a counties,and school systems that are sub- found in areas that can be nominal price. ject to Section 5's preclearance require- incorporated into districts To use the TIGER files and the popu- ments under the retrogression standard. lation data,a jurisdiction will need map- If a jurisdiction has created majority- Obeying normal district- ping or Geographic Information System minority districts in the past, with less- drawing principles. If you software that can incorporate all the than-compact design,how can it in 2001 information. In larger jurisdictions, both (1) avoid a Shaw problem by not can do that, it is probably planning departments already may have drawing unusually shaped districts again lawful to take race into software capable of analyzing the infor- and (2) avoid retrogression? Unfortu- account. mation. Other jurisdictions may wish to nately,the answer is not clear. . purchase it from commercial vendors. The National Conference of State How do you use the Legislatures has identified seven vendors census numbers? and analyzing the data that it had accu- that have demonstrated their services for mulated. By April 2001 the Census Bu- drawing districting plans. They can be The U.S. Bureau of the Census counted reau expects to have available the data found at http://www.tic.state.tx.ushlc/ the nation's population in April 2000. that cities,counties,and school systems research/ncls/vendors.htm. It spent the following months sorting will need for redistricting.Those data go In small jurisdictions or in jurisdic- 14 POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING 200I 101 tions where the population change has 25. G.S.160A-23(a)and 163A-22 for cities been small, it may be possible to rely Notes and G.S.153A-20 for counties. totally on census data provided in paper 26. G.S.143-318.9 through-318.17. form combined with paper maps. In 1. Section 160A-101 of the North Carolina 27. G.S.132-1 through-10. General Statutes for cities,Section 153A-58 28. News and Observer Publishing Co.v. more complex situations,the versatility for counties.Hereinafter the North Carolina Poole,330 N.C.465,412 S.E.2d 7(1992). of the software programs may be very General Statutes will be referred to as G.S. 29. See David M.Lawrence,PUBLIC helpful.Jurisdictions that purchase the 2. Dusch v.Davis,389 U.S.112(1967); REcORDs LAW FOR NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL software and undertake the manipula- Dallas County,Ala.v.Reese,421 U.S.477 GOVERNMENTS 11-15(Chapel Hill:Inst.of 1975 . Gov't The Univ.of N.C.at Chapel Hill tion of the data themselves must keep in � P mind the lessons of Shaw with respect to 3. G.S.153A-23(g). 1997). 4. G.S.160A-23(b)for cities,G.S.153A-22 30. Bush v.Vera,517 U.S.952,964(1996) the use of racial data.The ease of manip- for counties,and G.S.115C-37(i)for school (internal quotation marks omitted). ulation-figuring the exact racial make- systems. 31. The county statute,G.S.153A-22(c), up and drawing practically any bound- 5. Technically,a local bill is one that affects specifically so provides:"No change in the ary desired-may result in unconstitu- fewer than fifteen counties,and a public bill is boundaries of an electoral district may affect tional considerations of race. one that affects fifteen or more counties.For a the unexpired term of office of a commission- Finally,a potential resource exists at discussion of local acts,see JOSEPH S.FERRELL, er residing in the district and serving on the the General Assembly.As mentioned at THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY of NORTH CAROLINA: board on the effective date of the resolution." A HANDBOOK FOR LEGISLATORs 28-34(7th The city and school system statutes do not the outset of this article,the legislature is ed.,Chapel Hill:Inst.of Gov't,The Univ.of contain such an explicit provision,but there responsible for redrawing the districts N.C.at Chapel Hill,1997). also is no authorization anywhere in the for elections to the state House of Repre- 6. The statutes are G.S.160A-101 through statute for boards to shorten members'terms. sentatives, the state Senate, and Con- -111 for cities and G.S.153A-58 through-64 32. 42 U.S.C.S 1973c. gress. For those purposes it has pur- for counties. 33. It also is possible to seek preclearance in chased sophisticated hardware and soft- 7. G.S.160A-23(b)for cities,G.S.153A-22 federal district court in Washington,D.C. ware.In the 1990 redistricting,legisla- for counties,and G.S.115C-37(i)for school Further,it is possible for a jurisdiction,such as systems. a city,a county,or a school system,to"bail five staff assisted several local jurisdic- 8. G.S.160A-23 for cities and G.S.153A- out,"or remove itself,from the preclearance tions in drawing district boundaries,and 23 for counties. requirements of Section 5.Generally,to bail they stand available again.A request for 9. G.S.115C-37(i). out,the jurisdiction must show the federal dis- such assistance must be received by the 10. G.S.160A-23(b)for cities,G.S.153A-22 trict court for the District of Columbia that, staff from a member of the legislature, for counties,and G.S.115C-37(i)for school for the previous ten years,(1)it has not been and it must be worked into available districts. found in violation of the Voting Rights Act, staff time.This capability may be a very 11. Baker v Carr,369 U.S.186(1962). (2)it has not used a discriminatory procedure, valuable resource. 12. Reynolds v Sims,377 U.S.533(1964). (3)it has precleared all changes that were 13. Reynolds,377 U.S.at 555. required to be precleared,and(4)it has taken 14. Avery v.Midland County,390 U.S.474 positive steps to increase participation by By what date must you have (1968). minorities in the election process.The neces- 15. See Daly v.Hunt,93 F.3d 1212,1220 sary showing is generally considered onerous completed the redistricting? (4th Cir.1996)(involving county commission and is seldom undertaken. and school board districts for Mecklenburg 34. See Reno v.Bossier Parish School Bd., Counties should have their new districts County,N.C.);Chen v City of Houston,206 528 U.S.320(2000),for a recent discussion drawn in time for the beginning of can- F.3d 502,522(5th Cir.2000)(involving by the Supreme Court of retrogression. didate filing for county commissioner municipal election districts). 35. G.S.120-30.9A through-30.91. seats in January 2002. School systems 16. Daly,93 F.3d at 1220(internal quota- 36.28 C.F.R.pt.51. generally have their elections at the same tion marks omitted),quoting Reynolds,377 37. 42 U.S.C.S 1973. time as counties, so they also should U.S.at 577. 38. Thornburg v.Gingles,478 U.S.30 17. G.S.160A-23.1. (1986). have their new districts drawn by Jan- 18. G.S.153A-23(b). 39. Shaw v.Reno,509 U.S.630(1993) nary 2002. 19. G.S.115C-37(i). ("Shawl"). Cities have a special problem in that 20. G.S.160A-101(6)for cities,G.S.153A- 40. Shaw v.Hunt,517 U.S.899(1996) their candidate-filing period begins in 22(c)for counties,and G.S.115C-37(i)for ("Shaw II"). July 2001.44 Because drawing new dis- school systems. 41. Shaw II,517 U.S.at 905.See also Miller tricts and preclearing them(if necessary) 21. Garza v County of Los Angeles,918 v.Johnson,515 U.S.900(1995). by the candidate-filing deadline might F.2d 763(9th Cir.1990);Davis v.Mann,377 42. Shaw I,509 U.S.at 647. U.S.678(1964). 43. TIGER Overview(visited Jan.14, not be possible, the General Assembly 22. Daly v.Hunt,93 EM 1212,1227(4th 2001),available at http://wwwcensus.gov/ passed a statute permitting delay of the Cir.1996). geo/www/tiger/overview.html. 2001 elections to 2002 if necessary and 23. G.S.153A-22. 44. G.S.163-291 and-294.2. spelling out how that will work45 24. G.S.153A-23(b). 45. G.S.163-23.1. POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPRING ZOOI 15 102 Bob Joyce UNC School of Government April 22, 2021 Under GS 153A-58, counties may, without action by the General Assembly, chose for themselves (through a referendum process) one of four modes of election for county commissioner.1 1. GS 153A-58(3)a. At large elections—everybody votes for all candidates in primary and in general election; no districts The voters of the entire county vote for all candidates for nomination (in the primary) and for election (in the general election). 2. GS 153A-58(3)b. True electoral districts–only district voters vote for candidates in district primary and in district general election The voters of each district vote to nominate (in the primary) and elect all candidates (typically only one) from that district (in the general election). 3. GS 153A-58(3)c. Blended districts—only district voters vote for candidates in district primM but all voters of the county vote for all candidates in general election The voters of each district vote to nominate all candidates (typically only one) from the district (in the primary)but all voters of the county vote to elect all candidates (in the general election) 4. GS 153A-58(3)d. Residency districtscandidates must reside in districts but all voters of the county vote for candidates in primary and in general election. The voters of the entire county vote for all candidates in all districts in the primary election and in the general election,but the candidates must reside in the district they are running from. May a county combine districts with at-large seats? Under method#2, the answer is Yes. GS 153A-58(3)b specifically says so. Under method#3, the answer is Yes. GS 153A-58(3)c specifically says so. Under method#4, the answer appears to be No. GS 153A-58(3)d does not provide for combining at-large seats with residency district seats. Orange County uses method#3, combined with at-large seats. ' In addition to the mode of election,under GS 153A-58,counties may choose(within constraints)the number of members of the board,the length of terms of the board,and the manncr of election of the chair of the board. 103 The General Assembly has nearly plenary authority over the method of election of boards of county commissioners. The following are examples (not an exhaustive list) of actions by the General Assembly related to changes in the method of election for the following counties: Bladen County 1987 Allowing the commissioners, on a temporary basis, to make changes without a referendum Lee County 1989 Allowing the commissioners to make changes without a referendum and authorizing changes in the method of determining winners in the primary Union County 2007 Subject to a referendum, increasing the number of members and establishing voting districts 2 104 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA 1987 SESSION CHAPTER 646 HOUSE BILL 869 AN ACT TO ALLOW THE BLADEN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO ALTER THE MANNER OF THEIR ELECTION. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Section 1 The Bladen County Board of Commissioners may alter the structure of that board as provided under G.S. 153A-58 and G.S. 153A-59 by adopting a resolution before January 1, 1988, which complies with the provisions of G.S. 153A-60(1) through G.S. 153A-60(3). Sec. 2 Any modification adopted under Section 1 of this act may not be used for any election held after January 1, 1991, unless it is either: (1) ratified by act of the General Assembly which is ratified on or before April 15, 1991; or (2) approved by referendum conducted on or before December 31, 1990, in accordance with G.S. 153A-60(4), G.S. 153A-61, G.S. 153A-62, G.S. 153A-63, and G.S. 153A-64. Sec. 3. Before adopting any resolution under Section 1 of this act, the Bladen County Board of Commissioners shall hold a public hearing on that resolution, and shall publish notice of the hearing at least ten days before it is held. Sec. 4. If a resolution is adopted under Section 1 of this act, a certified true copy of it shall be filed with the Secretary of State, the Supreme Court Library, and with the Legislative Library. Sec. 5. This act is effective upon ratification. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 20th day of July, 1987. 3 105 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA 1989 SESSION CHAPTER 195 HOUSE BILL 595 AN ACT CONCERNING THE MANNER OF ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LEE COUNTY. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Section 1. [repeals section calling for referendum]. Sec. 2. [repeals section calling for referendum]. Sec. 3 [repeals section calling for referendum] Sec. 4 [this section adds the following provisions to GS 153A-58] Manner of determining results of the primary a. As provided by G.S. 163-111. b. When more than one person is seeking election to a single office, the candidate who receives the highest number of votes shall be declared the nominee. When more persons are seeking nomination to two or more offices (constituting a group than there are offices to be filled, those candidates receivingthe he highest number of votes, equal in number to the number of offices to be filled, shall be declared the nominee. If two or more candidates receivingthe he highest number of votes necessary to be nominated each receive the same number of votes, the proper party executive committee shall, from among those candidates receiving the same number of votes, select the party nominee in accordance with G.S. 163-114. c. As provided by G.S. 163-111, except that some percentage established by the resolution but less than a majority shall be sufficient to be nominated without another candidate havingthe he right to call for a second primary Manner of votingiprimary: Each voter may not vote for more than a certain number of candidates in the primary,which total is less than the number of seats to be nominated. Q Manner of votingin�n the general election: Each voter may not vote for more than a certain number of candidates in the general election, which total is less than the number of seats to be elected. Sec. 5. Before adopting any resolution under Part 4 of Article 4 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes, a county board of commissioners shall hold a public hearing on that resolution, and shall publish notice of the hearing at least 10 days before it is held. Sec. 6. This act applies to Lee County only. 4 106 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2007 SESSION LAW 2007-328 SENATE BILL 398 AN ACT to allow the citizens of union county to determine if district representation should be implemented for the union county board of commissioners. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. [extraneous] SECTION 2. Effective the first Monday in December 2008, the membership of the Union County Board of Commissioners shall be increased by two members. Effective the first Monday in December 2008, the membership of the Union County Board of Commissioners shall consist of two members elected at large and five members elected from electoral districts as set out in this act. SECTION 3.For the purpose of nominating and electing members of the Union County Board of Commission in 2008, and periodically thereafter, Union County shall be divided into the following districts with each district electing one commissioner: [detailed census block descriptions of the new districts] SECTION 4. [setting up staggered terms] SECTION 5. In accordance with G.S.153A-22, the electoral districts as set out in Section 2 of this act may be redrawn as required by federal and State law following each decennial federal census. SECTION 6. The Union County Board of Elections shall place on the ballot, on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November 2007, a referendum for the purpose of submission to the qualified voters of Union County the question of whether or not the structure of the board of county commissioners shall be altered to increase the number of commissioners to seven and create electoral districts. The Union County Board of Elections shall adopt a procedure to provide for legal notice of the referendum consistent with the intent of Chapter 163 of the General Statutes. SECTION 7. In the election, the ballot question shall be separate from other ballot questions, and the question on the ballot shall be: "Shall the structure of the county board of commissioners be altered such that the number of commissioners is increased to seven and electoral districts are created. [ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST" 5 107 SECTION 8.In the election, if a majority of the votes are cast "YES," Sections 1 through 5 of this act shall become effective on the date that the Union County Board of Elections certifies the results of the election. Otherwise, Sections 1 through 5 of this act shall have no force and effect. SECTION 9. This act applies only to Union County. 6 108 49 157 86 57 District 2 — 70 � 70 86 District 1 : 3 Commissioners District 2: 2 Commissioners At-Large: 2 Commissioners 54 District 1 15 501 '"gIN o i z Miles Voting District 1 p k 9L Voting District 2 Orange C County Planning and Inspections Department Current BOCC Voting Districts GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.5/26/2011 Actual Population Ideal Population 5% Deviation Actual Difference Actual % Deviation Census 2010 County Population 133,801 District 1 Population (3 Members) 82,412 80,280 +/-4,014 + 2,132 + 2.66 % District 2 Population (2 Members) 51,389 53,520 +/- 2,676 - 2,131 - 3.98 % People per Commissioner: 133,801/5=26,760 One person, one vote applies to people being elected from a district not to a person who is elected at-large. This is why the total population is divided by 5 and not 7. Current Districts (Census zoo Data and z Districts) 109 Nominate by District and Elected At-large 0 a D 0 0 0 `U D O P � O o m 7 Commissioners 3 in District 1 g` 2 in District 2 . o 2 At-large 0 0. 0 Q Current BOCC Districts Current Districts I District 1 District 2 Census 2010 Population 133,801 District 1 Population (3 Commissioners) 79,953 80,280 +/-4,014 -327 -0.41 District 2 Population (2 Commissioners) 53,848 53,520 +/-2,676 328 0.61 People per Commissioner: 133,801/5= 26,760 One person, one vote applies to people being elected from a district not to a person who is elected at-large.This is why the total population is divided by 5 and not 7. U:pis VVr i K-Pace�PrujeasVVoti ng i,eaistciaingi aaistnccing work group 2021�Reviekv 2021-Pi:e�wn enc DI 11-cs k�ensus 2010 Data and 2 Districts) 110 Elected by Elected Candidate Nominated general commissioner Statute must by primary election officially Option reference* System Abbrev. reside in: voters in: voters in: represents: 1 a Pure at-large al county county county county 2 b-1 Pure districts d district district district district Districts-at-large 1: only district 3 c-1 voters nominate in primary dall district district county district Districts-at-large 2: all county voters 4 d nominate in the primary dal2 district county county district 5 b-2 Combination of pure districts& cda district district district district pure at-large seats county county county county Orange cdal Combination of districts-at-large 1 district district county district County>> 6 c 2 & pure at-large seats I county county county county *Based on General Statute 153A-58, paragraph (3). IStatute link Abbrev: Summary of how it works: al at-large seat; any county resident can run; all county votes d district residency; only district votes cda combination of d and al seats cdal combination of dall and al seats dal district residency required; all county votes to elect in general (see dall and dal2 for primary rules) dall district residency required; only district voters nominate in primary, all county voters elect for each seat in general election dal2 district residency required; all county votes for each seat,for both nomination (primary)and general election 111 BOCC Elections Advisory Group Members by BOCC Election District Kathy Arab — District 1 Nicholas Batman — District 1 Dr. Nathan Boucher— District 1 Jennifer Bremer— District 1 Jaazaniah Catterall — District 1 Susana Dancy— District 1 Dr. Lisa Hazirjian — District 1 Dr. Krishna Mondal — District 1 Dr. Jonathan Weiler— District 1 Brian Crawford — District 2 Martha Jenkins — District 2 Patrick Mulkey — District 2 Alicia Reid — District 2 Jenn Sykes — District 2 Rex Williams — District 2 112 BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP STATEMENTS OF INTEREST FOR CO-CHAIR POSITIONS DISTRICT 1 Jaaz Catterall I am submitting this statement of interest as a relative newcomer to the area, but also as someone who hopes to make Orange County my home for years to come. Because I have moved frequently between small, rural towns and larger cities, I understand the tensions that can arise between people who feel their interests are not always adequately represented by those from neighboring communities; because I am new to the county, I can help conduct our meetings from a neutral perspective rather than as a district partisan. I joined this board because I care about democracy and ensuring that people's voices are heard, and I am applying to be co-chair for the same reason. I care about the people of this county, and I'm excited to be working alongside others who share my goal of creating a fair and equitable method of electing our county commissioners. Just as I care about people having their voices heard in Orange County, I am committed to ensuring everyone in this group has an opportunity to be heard. Making that commitment a reality will take effort, as it's easy to settle into allowing the most eager voices to run the conversation. But making that effort to include everyone is especially important in a group as personally and geographically diverse as ours, where, if we're not careful, built-in majorities can take over a meeting. At the same time, I recognize the short timeframe we've been given to complete our tasks and will work to keep us moving in the right direction. I have experience conducting meetings of a dozen or so people, and I'm sure we've all been in groups that focus on small points in excruciating detail at the expense of making progress toward larger goals. That's not what I hope to accomplish here, and if selected I would work with my co-chair to both set the agenda and conduct discussion in a way that promotes progress. Finally, I am taking the time to learn the rules and procedures applicable to us as a board and to the work we have before us so that I can make sure my own contributions are productive rather than gratuitous. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to seeing all of you! -Jaaz Catterall 113 Lisa Hazirjian I'm stepping forward as a nominee for Co-Chair for District One in hopes that my experience helping organizations develop effective & enjoyable group processes and design effective meetings can be an asset to the BEAG. In my years working in the nonprofit sector, as well as serving on the Carrboro Human Services Advisory Board, I've partnered with board members to develop outcome-oriented meeting agendas that make the most of limited opportunities to do collective thinking, share ideas, identify pivotal questions, and come to agreements. For example, this past fall & winter, I worked remotely with a nonprofit client to help a staff subcommittee articulate a short- term goal & desired outcome, break down steps to reach that result, and develop monthly meeting agendas to get us through the process. I also come to this process with track record of wanting as many perspectives as possible in public discourse and working hard to make space for everyone to be heard. As a member of the Carrboro Human Services Advisory Commission, to take one example, I partnered with the chair last year to make our budget recommendation meetings more inclusive and efficient (happy to explain the magic if you're interested!). I believe we have a tremendous team of people assembled in this group, and I want to do what I can to make sure we end this process feeling that both individually and collectively we've used our resources to fulfill our charge. I would be honored to serve in that capacity. 114 DISTRICT 2 Patrick Mulkey I am interested in one of the Co-Chair positions of the BEAG. • 1 have lived in the Bingham Township area for 36 years. • Served on the Planning Board's Bingham Township Advisory Board (2 years as Chairman). • Served 2 terms on the County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (2 years as Chairman) • Served many years on the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Farmers Market Board of Directors (2 years as President) I would also add that during my term as President of the Farmers' Market we moved into our current location next to Carrboro Town Hall. These were challenging times for the Market, as there were many unknowns about the new market space and we had some farmers unwilling to move to the new location. The new location also was unlike what you see today. There were negotiations between the Town and Market before the move could be completed. I look at the BEAG co-chairmanship as a challenge for both Chairs to work together in order to have a smooth running committee that achieves its goals efficiently for all of us on the committee and to serve the citizens of Orange County. Part of the job of any chair is to promote the opportunity for ALL viewpoints to be expressed. I ask for your support and your vote as District 2 Co-Chair of our Committee. Patrick Mulkey Orange County Population General Breakdown 1980-2010 115 TOWNSHIP POPULATION Municipality 1980 1990 2000 2010 BINGHAM 3,954 5,184 6,181 6,527 CEDAR GROVE 3,166 3,691 4,930 5,222 CHAPEL HILL 50,572 61,973 76,578 87,971 Town of Carrboro 7,517 12,134 16,782 19,582 Town of Chapel Hill 32,038 37,596 44,102 54,397 Unincorporated 11,017 12,243 15,694 13,992 CHEEKS 4,821 5,422 7,064 9,313 City of Mebane 379 485 675 1,793 Unincorporated 4,442 4,937 6,389 7,520 ENO 4,450 5,262 6,092 7,501 HILLSBOROUGH 8,599 10,136 11,639 13,809 Town of Hillsborough 3,019 4,263 5,446 6,087 Unincorporated 5,580 5,873 6,193 7,722 LITTLE RIVER 1,493 2,183 3,047 3,458 TOTAL COUNTY 1 77,055 1 93,851 1 115,531 1 133,801 Total incorporated 42,953 54,478 67,005 81,859 Total Unincorporated 34,102 39,373 48,526 51,942 Note: The 2000 population numbers for the Town of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill Twp and Orange County have been corrected by the U.S. Census Bureau. This worksheet reflects those changes. Orange County Population Breakdown by Electoral District 2000-2010 116 District 1 District 2 2000 2010 2000 2010 Total Population 74,085 82,412 44,142 51,389 Age Under 5 Years Old 31150 3,796 2,704 3,094 5-9 Years Old 3,749 4,556 3,192 3,429 10-14 Years Old 3,974 4,708 3,285 3,347 15-17 Years Old 2,246 2,887 1,684 2,152 18-19 Years Old 7,119 6,413 849 1,031 20 Years Old 4,494 3,938 357 447 21 Years Old 3,962 4,035 391 382 22-24 Years Old 6,511 6,788 1,190 1,376 25-29 Years Old 6,867 6,873 2,694 2,561 30-34 Years Old 4,956 4,991 3,370 2,904 35-39 Years Old 4,498 4,559 3,913 3,539 40-44 Years Old 4,786 5,055 4,251 3,905 45-49 Years Old 4,676 5,015 4,112 4,429 50-54 Years Old 3,648 4,815 3,487 4,542 55-59 Years Old 2,380 4,202 2,411 4,389 60-61 Years Old 744 1,413 745 1,463 62-64 Years Old 932 1,786 969 2,092 65-66 Years Old 577 985 594 1,022 67-69 Years Old 822 1,200 782 1,325 70-74 Years Old 1,256 1,454 1,244 1,520 75-79 Years Old 1,210 1,131 915 1,026 80-84 Years Old 786 856 571 780 85 Year Old and Over 742 956 432 634 18 Years Old and Over 60,966 66,465 33,277 39,367 Race and Ethnicity White Alone 57,240 59,673 35,032 39,822 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 280 289 177 281 Asian Alone 4,573 8,497 272 526 Black or African American Alone 8,918 8,418 7,380 7,510 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 13 24 7 17 Some Other Race Alone 1,632 3,267 680 2,074 Population Two or More Races 1,429 2,244 594 1,159 Total Hispanic or Latino 3,863 6,925 1,410 4,092 Total Not Hispanic or Latino 70,222 75,487 42,732 47,297 Source: US Census Bureau(https://www.census.gov/data.html) The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not follow the district boundaries exactly, so if a census block was split by a district then it was assigned to the district that the majority of the block was in.These numbers should be used as estimates. 117 Orange County Population and Demographics by Precinct 2000-2010 CALDWELL CAMERON PARK CARR CARRBORO CEDAR FALLS CEDAR GROVE CHEEKS COKER HILLS 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Total Population 3,034 3,431 1,470 2,964 1,393 1,458 1,806 1,863 4,918 6,574 1,807 1,998 5,053 6,680 1,456 1,476 Age Under Years Old 174 153 79 212 79 62 93 93 300 346 113 90 366 492 61 64 5-9 Years Old 205 197 106 312 95 97 105 94 405 527 141 118 381 453 81 94 10-14 Years Old 230 228 102 257 111 96 126 81 415 514 152 137 351 415 105 96 15-17 Years Old 134 140 59 110 66 64 62 60 217 352 58 106 183 249 74 58 18-19 Years Old 69 56 35 42 26 38 24 26 89 155 44 47 94 156 14 32 20 Years Old 20 31 12 19 11 21 21 40 51 66 10 21 39 58 3 12 21 Years Old 20 20 9 16 24 9 48 71 79 55 15 24 44 59 11 19 22-24 Years Old 63 83 34 49 34 40 121 142 317 347 47 54 150 226 71 56 25-29 Years Old 160 128 74 82 90 68 172 210 432 559 79 72 416 394 121 102 30-40 Years Old 238 128 88 115 111 73 167 165 333 428 138 85 450 511 94 81 35-39 Years Old 275 198 110 246 143 95 163 132 397 459 189 131 442 582 95 74 40-44 Years Old 338 300 129 308 107 141 174 132 439 527 199 168 403 493 109 113 45-49 Years Old 292 347 155 289 122 132 140 133 445 531 166 199 394 508 124 105 50-54 Years Old 269 388 113 212 105 108 122 115 301 515 125 177 360 473 111 134 55-59 Years Old 167 321 100 188 62 124 59 120 217 369 94 174 250 467 73 117 60-61 Years Old 45 106 26 70 29 51 18 42 57 125 30 61 67 165 32 42 62/64 Years Old 61 176 39 102 30 56 31 55 71 148 43 71 123 236 42 56 65-66 Years Old 39 66 22 49 13 29 11 16 50 94 24 43 71 120 20 33 67-69 Years Old 64 93 28 85 24 44 23 20 78 99 13 62 99 148 40 37 70-74 Years Old 69 106 50 81 43 43 40 30 104 114 48 67 151 174 66 57 75-79 Years Old 47 79 57 52 28 20 38 25 72 112 41 29 108 134 55 42 80-84 Years Old 38 49 26 34 20 28 26 30 30 83 17 34 73 92 37 30 85 Years Old and Over 17 38 17 34 20 19 22 31 19 49 21 28 38 75 17 22 18 Years Old and Over 2,291 2,713 1,124 2,073 1,042 1,139 1,420 1,535 3,581 4,835 1,343 1,547 3,772 5,071 1,135 1,164 Race and Ethnicity White Alone 2,689 3,055 1,152 2,421 879 1,007 1,595 1,569 3,800 4,035 1,383 1,535 3,637 4,861 1,198 1,191 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 7 11 1 4 4 14 5 5 18 19 21 19 18 24 5 3 Asian Alone 14 17 8 51 1 2 31 59 554 1,485 4 5 9 50 63 80 Black or African American Alone 267 254 281 384 442 366 114 113 362 585 314 336 1,218 1,488 137 147 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 Some Other Race Alone 31 44 4 23 37 43 26 66 69 254 67 72 124 107 35 12 Population Two or More Races 26 49 24 81 30 26 35 51 115 195 18 31 45 147 17 43 Total Hispanic or Latino 44 91 40 89 55 100 62 130 183 679 93 152 257 385 65 75 Total Not Hispanic or Latino 2,990 3,340 1,430 2,875 1,338 1,358 1,744 1,733 4,735 5,895 1,714 1,846 4,796 6,295 1,391 1,401 Source:US Census Bureau(https://www.census.gov/data.html) The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not follow the precinct boundaries exactly, so if a census block was split by a precinct then it was assigned to the precinct that the majority of the block was in.The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not share the same boundaries in some cases so this might be why some precincts may appear to have large differences between the two years.These numbers should be used as estimates. 118 Orange County Population and Demographics by Precinct 2000-2010 COLES STORE COLONIAL HEIGHTS DAMASCUS DOGWOOD ACRES EAST FRANKLIN EASTSIDE EFLAND 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Total Population 1,765 1,917 2,903 3,477 3,322 3,437 2,594 3,982 3,159 3,276 2,119 2,270 2,018 2,595 Age Under Years Old 102 90 157 175 95 123 200 267 52 55 112 107 132 146 5-9 Years Old 144 125 158 179 137 157 253 407 39 52 153 131 150 178 10-14 Years Old 152 114 195 175 197 216 197 407 45 48 140 153 149 198 15-17 Years Old 61 79 114 109 95 125 94 211 28 28 83 86 88 121 18-19 Years Old 28 27 59 65 98 69 40 47 123 150 33 46 28 56 20 Years Old 8 8 84 193 236 91 23 11 370 391 10 17 14 26 21 Years Old 11 9 121 304 308 116 20 19 509 648 21 9 15 16 22-24 Years Old 38 35 261 473 527 525 114 119 635 633 92 98 54 68 25-29 Years Old 63 53 279 269 397 507 224 241 329 289 190 198 123 117 30-40 Years Old 88 75 238 188 212 218 245 252 176 168 134 168 151 138 35-39 Years Old 173 115 213 182 182 208 297 340 126 95 157 150 162 188 40-44 Years Old 209 147 216 201 181 205 266 437 91 96 198 151 186 181 45-49 Years Old 234 168 262 173 216 201 222 348 119 86 168 171 183 217 50-54 Years Old 155 222 180 219 132 156 109 305 137 108 117 155 149 216 55-59 Years Old 98 240 105 205 70 181 81 211 97 95 98 136 129 205 60-61 Years Old 25 86 25 75 21 53 25 52 31 32 33 48 45 67 62/64 Years Old 34 102 36 79 33 56 29 59 29 79 49 65 40 106 65-66 Years Old 18 38 23 32 12 26 23 53 30 36 29 37 30 63 67-69 Years Old 32 57 35 41 24 31 27 45 31 51 38 54 39 69 70-74 Years Old 44 52 68 48 36 52 44 53 64 53 59 76 61 85 75-79 Years Old 32 22 38 42 30 47 32 42 40 30 83 67 53 63 80-84 Years Old 9 26 20 32 30 26 16 29 37 34 51 51 24 44 85 Years Old and Over 7 27 16 18 53 48 13 27 21 19 71 96 13 27 18 Years Old and Over 1,306 1,509 2,279 2,839 2,798 2,816 1,850 2,690 2,995 3,093 1,631 1,793 1,499 1,952 Race and Ethnicity White Alone 1,660 1,771 2,452 2,590 2,863 2,563 2,247 3,261 2,760 2,756 1,559 1,446 1,688 2,076 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 5 11 7 19 5 23 3 5 23 12 7 3 7 16 Asian Alone 22 27 156 316 178 321 159 446 158 202 234 346 10 15 Black or African American Alone 55 63 213 371 177 332 113 113 126 208 236 297 263 351 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0 0 2 4 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 7 Some Other Race Alone 5 15 28 53 46 107 26 37 35 35 19 120 21 95 Population Two or More Races 18 30 45 124 52 89 46 119 57 61 64 57 29 35 Total Hispanic or Latino 24 77 95 187 109 262 99 159 108 158 66 184 70 199 Total Not Hispanic or Latino 1,741 1,840 2,808 3,290 3,213 3,175 2,495 3,823 3,051 3,118 2,053 2,086 1,948 2,396 Source:US Census Bureau(https://www.census.gov/data.html) The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not follow the precinct boundaries exactly,so if a census block was split by a precinct then it was assigned to the precinct that the majority of the block was in. The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not share the same boundaries in some cases so this might be why some precincts may appear to have large differences between the two years.These numbers should be used as estimates. 119 Orange County Population and Demographics by Precinct 2000-2010 ENO ESTES HILLS GLENWOOD GRADY BROWN HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH EAST HOGAN FARMS KINGS MILL 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Total Population 3,533 4,014 2,717 2,702 1,829 2,919 4,049 5,488 1,498 1,523 1,540 1,646 1,438 3,068 2,193 2,242 Age Under Years Old 227 329 83 90 69 153 329 458 74 76 69 91 88 218 96 86 5-9 Years Old 242 343 158 129 83 202 336 436 85 77 112 80 115 347 136 141 10-14 Years Old 267 260 214 152 82 175 315 382 111 78 102 87 124 339 172 166 15-17 Years Old 151 175 115 107 47 74 136 238 47 39 33 46 83 197 93 117 18-19 Years Old 75 81 61 51 22 28 70 115 32 40 23 32 25 47 31 32 20 Years Old 27 33 90 71 45 32 45 66 14 8 11 21 7 16 13 10 21 Years Old 23 27 138 175 84 58 58 42 20 14 19 8 13 10 12 15 22-24 Years Old 99 94 200 260 190 245 155 210 37 50 48 42 33 41 56 68 25-29 Years Old 235 266 189 203 250 351 372 416 87 108 99 119 81 88 116 93 30-40 Years Old 264 271 161 128 181 197 440 409 113 112 126 103 92 132 95 83 35-39 Years Old 306 281 133 112 111 202 406 455 116 105 112 109 113 213 142 103 40-44 Years Old 357 280 207 131 112 219 361 463 134 103 116 102 170 330 199 123 45-49 Years Old 335 309 225 156 80 168 301 457 128 120 118 115 153 326 235 208 50-54 Years Old 262 311 196 205 83 149 249 412 122 122 100 118 115 282 227 236 55-59 Years Old 195 326 166 184 67 158 144 317 73 124 98 127 65 197 168 229 60-61 Years Old 68 99 54 63 23 67 40 74 23 52 25 40 24 55 59 88 62/64 Years Old 76 136 52 98 31 83 54 128 28 52 40 64 25 57 54 113 65-66 Years Old 56 59 32 75 19 49 38 80 24 34 21 30 19 27 31 69 67-69 Years Old 60 77 61 91 22 57 39 72 34 53 28 52 17 49 55 74 70-74 Years Old 93 112 72 SO 51 92 80 93 64 46 70 60 34 44 82 96 75-79 Years Old 60 75 61 68 69 54 46 68 54 43 61 49 21 28 70 42 80-84 Years Old 36 45 30 41 48 47 22 52 32 35 52 63 12 17 36 31 85 Years Old and Over 19 25 19 32 60 59 13 45 46 32 57 88 9 8 15 19 18 Years Old and Over 2,646 2,907 2,147 2,224 1,548 2,315 2,933 3,974 1,181 1,253 1,224 1,342 1,028 1,967 1,696 1,732 Race and Ethnicity White Alone 3,121 2,921 2,196 2,104 1,555 2,425 3,153 4,093 849 978 1,396 1,403 1,144 2,418 1,969 1,967 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 20 33 4 2 8 12 26 53 1 14 2 5 6 3 2 6 Asian Alone 26 35 217 263 120 264 28 91 7 23 5 16 24 272 66 76 Black or African American Alone 294 267 233 225 98 112 650 780 588 455 102 118 202 216 124 108 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Some Other Race Alone 30 615 32 33 18 31 86 281 23 35 20 61 35 82 6 38 Population Two or More Races 42 143 33 75 30 75 105 188 30 18 15 43 27 77 26 45 Total Hispanic or Latino 94 922 66 115 55 114 186 641 39 84 56 139 66 237 28 96 Total Not Hispanic or Latino 3,439 3,092 2,651 2,587 1,774 2,805 3,863 4,847 1,459 1,439 1,484 1,507 1,372 2,831 2,165 2,146 Source:US Census Bureau(https://www.census.gov/data.htmi) The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not follow the precinct boundaries exactly,so if a census block was split by a precinct then it was assigned to the precinct that the majority of the block was in. The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not share the same boundaries in some cases so this might be why some precincts may appear to have large differences between the two years.These numbers should be used as estimates. 120 Orange County Population and Demographics by Precinct 2000-2010 LIONS CLUB NORTH CARRBORO NORTH SIDE ORANGE GROVE OWASA PATTERSON RIDGEFIELD 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Total Population 2,635 3,285 2,923 2,918 2,583 2,957 3,872 4,220 3,580 4,066 3,417 3,634 3,000 2,686 Age Under Years Old 72 166 222 155 85 80 237 197 201 284 154 157 127 149 5-9 Years Old 66 103 320 242 90 69 246 227 159 225 239 199 189 200 10-14 Years Old 53 88 324 331 98 77 264 272 103 173 280 240 247 177 15-17 Years Old 35 45 186 188 44 53 147 173 77 111 177 191 118 116 18-19 Years Old 33 65 45 56 110 120 64 87 92 71 65 78 51 50 20 Years Old 52 67 16 12 252 332 36 37 94 96 18 19 35 28 21 Years Old 53 76 8 7 274 564 28 25 169 102 15 18 62 47 22-24 Years Old 324 460 46 31 417 624 94 83 604 440 54 97 178 151 25-29 Years Old 577 675 77 56 271 259 208 166 764 708 150 148 236 193 30-40 Years Old 377 418 167 87 193 132 307 236 407 523 163 138 189 157 35-39 Years Old 231 212 310 167 150 88 383 268 261 340 218 167 197 150 40-44 Years Old 155 183 379 272 132 93 457 323 209 234 297 202 240 176 45-49 Years Old 106 151 364 346 93 87 426 399 145 218 425 279 220 176 50-54 Years Old 86 117 223 332 90 96 312 485 90 185 353 336 197 190 55-59 Years Old 81 115 72 309 60 78 198 466 59 133 234 455 163 177 60-61 Years Old 30 34 17 79 18 32 66 116 16 36 66 158 49 62 62/64 Years Old 50 52 18 87 35 28 85 191 42 37 85 198 62 82 65-66 Years Old 31 29 9 23 17 21 60 73 12 37 44 109 47 59 67-69 Years Old 37 46 28 29 21 15 77 94 21 31 57 135 81 66 70-74 Years Old 44 64 40 39 33 32 81 120 32 35 112 126 95 85 75-79 Years Old 59 47 30 26 47 22 52 101 11 29 96 70 101 82 80-84 Years Old 37 32 14 25 32 18 24 48 4 11 59 67 57 58 85 Years Old and Over 46 40 8 19 21 37 20 33 8 7 56 47 59 55 18 Years Old and Over 2,409 2,883 1,871 2,002 2,266 2,678 2,978 3,351 3,040 3,273 2,567 2,847 2,319 2,044 Race and Ethnicity White Alone 1,910 2,222 2,621 2,580 1,521 2,028 3,409 3,682 2,094 2,091 3,082 3,005 2,396 1,933 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 9 11 1 2 8 7 17 8 26 32 5 10 17 15 Asian Alone 120 229 168 184 50 87 35 40 254 378 66 113 146 176 Black or African American Alone 429 484 66 44 929 701 293 265 675 659 187 163 342 400 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 4 0 1 1 Some Other Race Alone 84 254 10 28 28 76 80 140 437 755 39 267 44 81 Population Two or More Races 83 84 56 80 47 57 38 82 94 150 34 76 54 80 Total Hispanic or Latino 180 461 55 112 93 183 121 242 894 1,354 113 390 124 200 Total Not Hispanic or Latino 2,455 2,824 2,868 2,806 2,490 2,774 3,751 3,978 2,686 2,712 3,304 3,244 2,876 2,486 Source:US Census Bureau(https://www.census.gov/data.htmi) The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not follow the precinct boundaries exactly,so if a census block was split by a precinct then it was assigned to the precinct that the majority of the block was in. The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not share the same boundaries in some cases so this might be why some precincts may appear to have large differences between the two years.These numbers should be used as estimates. 121 Orange County Population and Demographics by Precinct 2000-2010 ROGERS EUBANKS ST1OHN ST MARYS TOLARS TOWN HALL UNC WEAVER DAIRY 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Total Population 2,121 3,727 2,999 3,309 2,382 2,850 1,759 1,815 3,251 2,407 13,097 11,352 3,789 4,007 Age Under Years Old 163 220 155 167 127 128 99 83 228 155 205 253 159 210 5-9 Years Old 233 369 220 229 167 187 126 95 185 105 98 130 228 263 10-14 Years Old 251 428 278 276 182 166 147 123 141 87 91 108 222 302 15-17 Years Old 102 236 155 182 87 126 61 87 95 58 83 91 160 190 18-19 Years Old 45 86 49 57 54 40 36 43 102 28 5,718 4,963 73 80 20 Years Old 10 27 23 20 15 19 8 14 94 55 2,657 2,065 88 51 21 Years Old 9 30 28 24 15 25 12 20 142 93 1,376 1,038 138 81 22-24 Years Old 41 77 79 75 40 50 44 59 399 268 946 697 308 291 25-29 Years Old 61 92 92 95 108 78 75 54 539 328 608 499 332 347 30-40 Years Old 136 158 138 141 151 103 117 76 380 293 334 375 240 249 35-39 Years Old 211 277 203 169 231 179 162 105 260 229 154 217 213 265 40-44 Years Old 258 407 345 224 255 203 188 131 186 159 117 139 243 337 45-49 Years Old 250 429 340 262 220 321 182 173 167 156 106 116 302 322 50-54 Years Old 160 314 330 341 239 302 153 174 113 110 139 129 261 264 55-59 Years Old 74 231 199 336 165 271 94 174 71 93 95 124 154 252 60-61 Years Old 18 57 63 135 51 114 34 51 21 38 41 56 39 93 62/64 Years Old 15 79 58 164 54 157 52 90 23 54 49 75 61 110 65-66 Years Old 15 39 49 83 22 75 23 47 13 23 25 35 36 46 67-69 Years Old 10 51 49 100 55 89 38. 54 15 18 53 51 35 79 70-74 Years Old 28 58 60 87 57 89 51 69 18 21 56 73 86 80 75-79 Years Old 13 29 45 68 36 57 22 48 24 16 62 50 157 44 80-84 Years Old 12 22 23 44 35 41 18 25 22 6 55 26 121 29 85 Years Old and Over 6 11 18 30 16 30 17 20 13 14 29 42 133 22 18 Years Old and Over 1,372 2,474 2,191 2,455 1,819 2,243 1,326 1,427 2,602 2,002 12,620 10,770 3,020 3,042 Race and Ethnicity White Alone 1,489 2,023 2,251 2,390 2,094 2,477 1,280 1,323 1,799 1,624 10,246 8,717 2,991 2,597 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 1 19 6 13 2 11 10 10 18 14 70 44 13 10 Asian Alone 226 1,038 39 93 23 20 3 7 116 139 998 1,045 262 600 Black or African American Alone 349 389 641 593 213 250 425 393 835 322 1,486 1,164 343 352 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 0 Some Other Race Alone 21 106 24 164 21 35 23 44 386 251 64 126 94 324 Population Two or More Races 35 152 38 56 29 57 18 38 97 53 231 255 84 124 Total Hispanic or Latino 90 260 73 271 43 102 35 65 772 357 220 429 209 509 Total Not Hispanic or Latino 2,031 3,467 2,926 3,038 2,339 2,748 1,724 1,750 2,479 2,050 12,877 10,923 3,580 3,498 Source:US Census Bureau(https://www.census.gov/data.htmi) The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not follow the precinct boundaries exactly,so if a census block was split by a precinct then it was assigned to the precinct that the majority of the block was in. The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not share the same boundaries in some cases so this might be why some precincts may appear to have large differences between the two years.These numbers should be used as estimates. 122 Orange County Population and Demographics by Precinct 2000-2010 WEAVER DAIRY SAT WEST HILLSBOROUGH WESTWOOD WHITE CROSS 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Total Population 59 503 3,235 2,841 3,601 3,917 2,310 2,307 Age Under Years Old 0 1 204 199 127 179 139 131 5-9 Years Old 0 2 277 182 138 159 140 123 10-14 Years Old 0 3 260 176 154 136 110 118 15-17 Years Old 0 1 121 127 86 92 75 81 18-19 Years Old 0 1 76 62 182 88 30 31 20 Years Old 0 0 43 33 220 235 26 13 21 Years Old 0 0 42 34 339 474 21 16 22-24 Years Old 0 2 124 85 552 665 75 51 25-29 Years Old 1 8 213 185 530 503 141 107 30-40 Years Old 0 1 226 183 267 249 199 148 35-39 Years Old 0 0 266 181 180 175 218 134 40-44 Years Old 0 2 273 190 160 164 242 170 45-49 Years Old 0 4 214 194 194 143 217 201 50-54 Years Old 0 1 215 247 129 158 206 238 55-59 Years Old 0 3 169 196 86 150 141 213 60-61 Years Old 0 1 60 74 30 49 45 78 62/64 Years Old 0 5 76 117 37 65 49 110 65-66 Years Old 0 6 61 48 24 37 28 59 67-69 Years Old 0 18 56 67 22 47 38 74 70-74 Years Old 0 38 98 102 46 48 70 94 75-79 Years Old 5 83 77 73 47 37 45 42 80-84 Years Old 13 103 56 49 25 33 28 46 85 Years Old and Over 40 220 28 37 26 31. 27 29 18 Years Old and Over 59 496 2,373 2,157 3,096 3,351 1,846 1,854 Race and Ethnicity White Alone 58 480 1,672 1,412 2,533 2,668 1,881 1,797 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0 0 23 25 18 10 8 13 Asian Alone 0 13 4 8 234 386 7 5 Black or African American Alone 0 9 1,423 1,195 688 476 365 380 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 Some Other Race Alone 0 1 54 132 65 233 15 65 Population Two or More Races 1 0 59 68 62 142 34 47 Total Hispanic or Latino 0 3 84 228 151 390 56 186 Total Not Hispanic or Latino 59 500 3,151 2,613 3,450 3,527 2,254 2,121 Source:US Census Bureau(https://www.census.gov/data.htmi) The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not follow the precinct boundaries exactly,so if a census block was split by a precinct then it was assigned to the precinct that the majority of the block was in. The 2000 and 2010 census blocks do not share the same boundaries in some cases so this might be why some precincts may appear to have large differences between the two years.These numbers should be used as estimates. 123 Estimates of the Total Population of North Carolina, North Carolina Counties, and Municipalities within Counties for July 1,2019 Standard Population Estimates Geographic Area Municipality Alamance 151155 168761 17606 11.65 Alamance 951 1170 219 23.03 Burlington(Part) 49387 53276 3889 7.87 Elon 9409 12752 3343 35.53 Gibsonville(Part) 3148 3763 615 19.54 Graham 14153 15568 1415 10 Green Level 2100 2330 230 10.95 Haw River 2298 2488 190 8.27 Mebane(Part) 9600 12053 2453 25.55 Ossipee 543 605 62 11.42 Swepsonville 1154 1509 355 30.76 Caswell 23731 23443 -288 -1.21 Milton 166 172 6 3.61 Yanceyville 2039 2002 -37 -1.81 Chatham 63485 75705 12220 19.25 Cary(Part) 1422 3108 1686 118.57 Goldston 268 274 6 2.24 Pittsboro 3743 4667 924 24.69 Siler City 7887 8601 714 9.05 Durham 270001 316934 46933 17.38 Chapel Hill(Part) 2836 3372 536 18.9 Durham(Part) 228300 268907 40607 17.79 Morrisville(Part) 0 0 0 Raleigh(Part) 1067 1349 282 26.43 Orange 133693 146521 12828 9.6 Carrboro 19582 20769 1187 6.06 Chapel Hill(Part) 54397 60262 5865 10.78 Durham(Part) 30 32 2 6.67 Hillsborough 6087 7809 1722 28.29 Mebane(Part) 1793 2276 483 26.94 Person 39476 40315 839 2.13 Roxboro 8362 8144 -218 -2.61 Wake 901052 1085297 184245 20.45 Angier(Part) 103 242 139 134.95 Apex 37476 61212 23736 63.34 Cary(Part) 133812 164115 30303 22.65 Clayton(Part) 0 0 0 Durham(Part) 0 400 400 Fuquay-Varina 17937 28109 10172 56.71 Garner 25745 32213 6468 25.12 Holly Springs 24661 36385 11724 47.54 Knightdale 11401 17264 5863 51.43 Morrisville(Part) 18576 26973 8397 45.2 Raleigh(Part) 402825 470396 67571 16.77 Rolesville 3786 6921 3135 82.81 Wake Forest(Part) 29218 37469 8251 28.24 Wendell 5845 7515 1670 28.57 Zebulon(Part) 4433 5165 732 16.51 *Centerville and Spencer Mountain are no longer incorporated municipalities. Source:North Carolina OSBM,Standard Population Estimates,Vintage 2019 https://www.osbm.nc.gov/facts-figures/population-demographics 124 County and Municipal Population Totals 2010 2019 Growth Growth Rate Orange County 1331693 1481,476 141783 11% (1.1% PY) Hillsborough 61599 71161 562 8.5% (0.9% PY) Carrboro 19,568 211190 11622 8.3% (0.9% PY) Chapel Hill 571221 641051 61,830 11.9% (1.2% PY) Chatham County 63,485 741470 101985 17.3% (1.7% PY) North Carolina 91535,751 10,488,084 952,333 10% (1.0% PY) Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates CCC 125 Orange County 2010s Population Growth Smaller Than All Decades Since the 1960s Numeric Population Growth by Decade, 1930-2019 24, 376 19, 348 16, 796 15 574 14, 737 � 14, 783 11 , 363 8, 535 1 ,901 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Source: Decennial Census and Census Population Estimates CCC 126 2010s Second-Slowest Decade of Population Growth since 1930s for Orange County Percent Population Increase by Decade, 1930-2019 49% 34% 34% 25% 26% 9 /o 22% ° 13% 11 % 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Source: Decennial Census and Census Population Estimates CCC 127 2010s Slowest-Growing Decade for Chapel Hill Since 1970s Percent Population Increase by Decade, 1970-2019 24% 24% 19% 19% 12% 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Source: Decennial Census and Census Population Estimates 128 Carrboro Population Growth Less Than 10% Percent Population Increase by Decade, 1970-2019 65% 45% 38% 17% 8% 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Source: Decennial Census and Census Population Estimates CCC 129 2010s Slowest-Growing Decade for Hillsborough Since 1970s Percent Population Increase by Decade, 1970-2019 109% 41 % 28% 12% 9% 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Source: Decennial Census and Census Population Estimates CCC 130 Memo 1 : Population Change and 5/15/2020 Census 2020 Response Population Change - Orange County and Municipalities Orange County approaching 2000s growth • Orange County grew by 11.1% between 2010 and 2019. This is a nearly two percentage point increase in total growth from last year(9.2%); if these growth trends continued through early 2020,the growth rate over the decade may be close to the total growth observed in 2000. • It has added 14,783 residents since 2010, less than 1 K below the numeric population growth of the 2000s (15,574). Orange County nearing 2000s Percent population increase by decade, 1930-2019 49.3% 34.3% 33.5% 24.8% 26.0% 21.89'0 13.2 1 9.0% 1.1 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010-2019 CAROLINA Source:Census Bureau,Population Estimates DEMOGRAPHY 131 Hillsborough fastest-growing municipality in Orange County • As of 2018 - the latest year of data - Hillsborough's growth rate was 9.5%. This was 0.6 percentage points greater than Carrboro and 2.9 percentage points above Chapel Hill. • While numeric growth in Hillsborough was smallest of the three municipalities (+630 residents added), it is the only municipality to likely meet or exceed its 2000 numeric growth (+641). Hillsborough fasr r r town in Orange County Percent population - by decade, 1970-201 109.1% 41.2% 27.8% 11.8% 9.5% 1970s 1980s 1990S 2000s 2010-2018 CAROLINA Source:Census Bureau,Population Estimates DEMOGRAPHY 132 Gap in growth rate widens between Orange County and North Carolina • As of 2019, Orange County's growth rate (11.1%) is 1.1 percentage points greater than the state. • Last year,this gap was 0.3 percentage points: 9.2% in Orange County vs. 8.9% statewide. • Among the core Triangle counties, Orange County has grown the slowest since 2010.. Wake County has grown more than twice as quickly as Orange (23.4%) while Durham County's growth rate is 8.0 percentage points higher than Orange's. Orange, Chatham grew faster than state average Population growth rate,April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 Wake County 23.4% Durham County 19.1% Chatham County 17.3% Alamance County 12.1% ©range County 11.1% North Carolina 10.0% CAROLINA Source:Census Bureau,Population Estimates DEMOGRAPHY 0 R A N G E ( 0 U N T Y , i 133 BOCC Districts and Census BIock Groups Current B©CC districts Q Census 2010 Block Group Voting Precincts and Census Black Groups 134 Q Voting Precincts ® Census 2010 Block Group ORANGE COUNTY,NOR Voting Precincts and BoCC Districts 135 yf T i r NAME ID 49 157, CARR 1 CEDAR GROVE 2 1 �6 i 2 3 4 # TOLARS 3 CALDWELL 4 + # CHEEKS 5 M EFLAND 6 # WEST HILLSBOROUGH 7 57 GRADY BROWN 8 T �`•= CAMERON PARK 9 District-2 - # HILLSBOROUGH 10 # HILLSBOROUGH EAST 11 9 12 11 ST MARYS 12 ► f ENO 13 7 ORANGE GROVE 14 * 6 WHITE CROSS 15 70 10 COLES STORE 16 PATTERSON 17 11 70A 13 HOGAN FARMS 18 + 70 ROGERS EUBANKS 19 8 ➢ WEAVER DAIRY 20 WEAVER DAIRY SAT 21 751 CEDAR FALLS 22 + EASTSIDE 23 #T RIDGEFIELD 24 16 COKER HILLS 25 } 17 ESTES HILLS 26 M COLONIAL HEIGHTS 27 14 NORTH CARRBORO 28 CARRBORO 29 18 20 ST]OHN 30 i 22 LIONS CLUB 31 1 OWASA 32 # 27 86 26 25 23 28 TOWN HALL 33 54 2915 24 NORTH SIDE 34 33 31 36 501 WESTWOOD 35 34 3738+ EAST FRANKLIN 36 15 30 l32 35 i UNC 37 District 1 # GLENWOOD 38 KINGS MILL 39 44 39 # 41 DOGWOOD ACRES 40 DAMASCUS 41 py 1 in=3 miles C'RANGE r•1i' s COLIRITY 0 J Orange County Planning and Inspections BC 319121721 Orange County Population and demographic Breakdown by School District-2000-2010 136 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Orange 2000 2010 2000 2010 Population 75565 83863 42660 49938 Age Under 5 years 3,095 3,848 2680 3,042 5 to 9 years 3890 4,655 3085 3,330 10 to 14 years 4010 4,807 3190 3,248 15 to 17 years 2435 2,978 1575 2,061 18 and 19 years 7,155 6,445 810 999 20 years 4,480 3,946 355 439 21 years 3,865 4,043 400 374 22 to 24 years 6,595 6,828 1065 1,336 25 to 29 years 6,965 6,921 2,535 2,513 30 to 34 years 4,910 5,035 3,345 2,860 35 to 39 years 4,680 4,613 4,075 3,485 40 to 44 years 5,020 5,149 3,995 3,811 45 to 49 years 4,905 5,130 3,870 4,314 50 to 54 years 3,850 4,946 3,410 4,411 55 to 59 years 2,330 4,380 2,185 4,211 60 and 61 years 795 1,479 685 1,397 62 to 64 years 1,115 1,865 1,005 2,013 65 and 66 years 580 1,032 465 975 67 to 69 years 675 1,254 835 1,271 70 to 74 years 1,450 1,498 1,230 1,476 75 to 79 years 1,245 1,151 840 1,006 80 to 84 years 780 885 655 751 85 years and over 730 975 375 615 18 Years Old and Over 62,125 67,575 32,135 38,257 Race and Ethnicity White alone 58640 60903 33995 38592 Black or African American alone 8805 8453 7090 7475 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 410 291 225 279 Asian alone 4345 8561 300 462 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 25 24 4 17 Some Other Race alone 1490 3371 500 1970 Two or More Races 1855 2260 545 1143 Total Hispanic or Latino 4020 7078 1455 3939 Total Not Hispanic or Latino 71545 76785 41205 45999 Source: The Census 2000 School District Tabulation (STP2)is a special tabulation prepared by the U.S.Census Bureau's Population Division and sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics. *Age population might not add up to total population because of rounding. 137 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Student Statistics Last Ten Fiscal Years Year Ended Ethnic Distribution Percentage(3) Percentage of Graduates June 30 White Black Asian Hispanic Other Graduates(3) Continuing Education(3) 2020 53% 13% 1% 25% 8% N/A N/A 2019 55% 14% 1% 24% 6% 534 78% 2018 56% 14% 1% 24% 5% 558 79% 2017 58% 15% 1% 22% 4% 570 79% 2016 60% 15% 1% 20% 4% 577 83% 2015 61% 16% 1% 18% 4% 543 80% 2014 62% 16% 1% 17% 4% 521 85% 2013 63% 16% 1% 16% 4% 465 85% 2012 66% 16% 1% 14% 3% 539 84% 2011 67% 17% 1% 12% 3% 444 87% N/A=Not Available Sources: (1)NC Department of Public Instruction Average Daily Attend ance(ADA):Average Daily Membership(ADM)Ratio Reports (2)NC Department of Public Instruction Free&Reduced Meals Application Data Reports. Information for 2020 obtained from Orange County Board of Education Student Data. (3)North Carolina Public Schools Statistical Profile(2011-2020 Editions). Note: This table is a ten year schedule. However,the graduate data for the year ended June 30,2020 could not be obtained from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction prior to this report being issued. Therefore,there are only nine years of comparative data noted above. 138 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION Student Statistics Last Ten Fiscal Years Ethnic distribution Percentage Year Ended American Indian/ Graduates Continuing June 30 Alaskan Indian White Black Asian Hispanic- Other Graduates Education Percentage 2020 0.19%0 50.39% 10.94% 13.91% 17.27% 7.30% NIA NIA 2019 0.20% 50.89% 11.10% 14,21% 16.78% 6.82% 922 90.3%0 2018 0,23% 51.25% 11.18% 14.39% 16.40% 6.55% 848 88.7% 2017 0.26% 51.52% 11.21% 15.01% 15.74% 6.26% 821 90,4% 2016 0.34% 51.73% 11.04% 14.94% 15.66%a 6.29% 865 92,4%a 2015 0.37% 52.32% 10,97% 15.15% 15.03% 6.16% 916 90,3% 2014 0.47% 52.51% 11.28% 15.01% 14.40% 6.33% 860 92.1% 2013 0.50% 52.30% 11.40%6 15.00% 14.30% 6.50% 863 92.2% 2012 0.60% 49.50% 10.80% 13.10% 14.10% 11.90% 814 93.9%n 2011 0.15% 55.00% 12.76% 14.86% 10.96% 6,27% 738 88.3% NIA=Not Available Source: North Carolina PubileSchoo€s statistical Profile(2011-2020 Editions). Note: This table is a tan year schedule. However,the graduate data for the year ended June 30,2020 could nat be obtained from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction prior to this report being Issued. Therefore,there are only nine years of comparative data noted above. Page 93 139 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools Demographic and Funding Information (FY 2020-21) District Student Populations (FY 20-21 Budgeted Enrollment #'s): CHCCS OCS Total March 2020 Department of Public Instruction ADM Allotment#s 12,312 7,381 19,693 Less: Out of District 251 110 Q511 12,061 7,271 19,332 Plus: Budgeted Charter Students 166 885 1,051 Total Budgeted Students 12,227 8,156 20,383 59.99.% 40.01% Demographic Data: See Attached for Demographic information from both Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools. Local Per Pupil Funding/Operational Funding: Current Expense Local current expense funding supplements State and Federal funds received by each district for the operation of the schools. North Carolina law requires boards of county commissioners to provide equal per pupil appropriations to each system in counties that have more than one school administrative unit, as is the case in Orange County. It is important to note that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School system also receives proceeds from a special district tax approved many years ago by the voters of that district. At this time, the Orange County School system does not have a similar taxing authority. The approved fiscal year 2020-21 budget provides $4,367 per student for each of the 20,383 students in the two school systems. This represents a $14.75 per pupil increase from the $4,352.25 per pupil approved for fiscal year 2019-20. • Current Expense Funding for the Orange County Schools The approved budget increases the current year funding level by $216,050 and brings the total appropriation in current expense funding to $35,617,252. • Current Expense Funding for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools The approved budget decreases the current year funding level by$24,209 and brings the total current expense funding for the District to $53,395,309. 140 • District Tax— Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools The special district tax rate for the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools is approved to remain at the current tax rate of 20.18 cents per $100 assessed value for FY 2020-21. Each penny on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro district tax rate for fiscal year 2020-21 is expected to produce $1,208,899. Anticipated revenue from this special tax is estimated to generate approximately $1,995 per student for the district. Projected revenue from district tax proceeds for fiscal year 2020-21 totals $24,395,583. School Nurses and School Resource Officers Funding: The FY 2020-21 approved budget includes funds totaling $3,629,597, outside of the per pupil funding, to cover the costs of School Resource Officers in every middle and high school, and a School Health Nurse in every elementary, middle, and high school in both school systems, in an effort to replace the Fair Funding model implemented in FY 2006-07, which provided equal funds of $494,000 to both school systems outside of the per pupil funding to pay for costs associated with School Resource Officers and School Health Nurses. These services are provided through a contractual agreement with both school systems to provide these safety and health initiatives. Capital Funding and Debt Service: Recurring Capital Recurring capital outlay funding supports Category I (facility improvements), Category II (equipment and furnishings), and Category III (vehicles and bus purchases) expenditures. The equal per pupil allocations required by law for current expense appropriations are not applicable to this category of local school funding. This amount is distributed to each district based on its share of the total number of students. For fiscal year 2020-21, the approved budget provides total funding for recurring capital at $3.0 million. Of the total, recurring capital for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools equals $1,799,700 and Orange County Schools' allocation is $1,200,300. Instead of funding the recurring capital from pay-as-you-go funds, debt financing will be utilized in FY 2020-21, as it was in FY 2019-20. Long-Range Capital and School Capital Projects The County plans and programs long-range school capital funding through the County's Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Projects are funded by a combination of State and local bonds, non-bond financing and pay-as-you-go funding sources. The latter include dedicated half-cent sales tax revenues and property tax earmarked under the Board's Capital Funding Policy. The approved budget for FY 2020-21 includes$2,455,016 for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and $1,637,359 for Orange County Schools, for a total of$4,092,375 in FY 2020-21. Instead of funding the long- range capital from pay-as-you-go funds, debt financing will be utilized in FY 2020-21, as it was in FY 2019-20. 141 Deferred Maintenance Funds for School Capital Projects The FY 2020-21 Commissioner Approved Budget includes $3,000,000 allocated by ADM towards deferred maintenance needs as addressed in both districts' assessment of older facilities in the following amounts: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools' appropriation of$1,799,700, and Orange County Schools appropriation of$1,200,300. See Attached for a Schools Summary as presented in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP), which reflects total Capital related funding. Debt Service These funds repay principal and interest due on School related debt, including general obligation bonds and private placement loans. For FY 20-21, total debt service related to Schools total $18,297,557. Principal and Interest for General Obligation (GO) Bonds is $8,892,548 and Principal and Interest for Non-General Obligation Bonds is $9,405,009. 142 School Projects Summary-APPROVED Fiscal Years 2020-25 Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Five Year 6 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year to Appropriations 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total Year 10 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools 8,689,391 10,460,944 18,279,059 12,652,619 6,557,121 6,661,661 54,611,404 84,197,532 Bond Referendum 1,922,000 1,922,000 Deferred Maintenance Projects 1,804,200 1,799,700 1,799,700 49,207,493 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools 5,080,991 5,061,544 4,557,359 4,655,919 4,757,421 4,861,961 23,894,204 25,991,539 Article 46 Sales Tax Proceeds 1,223,319 1,165,356 1,211,971 1,260,449 1,310,867 1,363,302 6,311,945 7,679,447 Debt Financing-Older Facilities 601,400 599,900 599,900 Debt Financing-School Improvements 2,412,896 2,455,016 2,504,116 2,554,198 2,605,282 2,657,387 12,775,999 14,105,732 Lottery Proceeds 843,376 841,272 841,272 841,272 841,272 841,272 4,206,360 4,206,360 Recurring Capital Items 1,804,200 1,799,700 1,799,700 1,799,700 1,799,700 1,799,700 8,998,500 8,998,500 Supplemental Deferred Maintenance Program 1,800,000 10,000,000 6,197,000 17,997,000 Orange County Schools 25,823,215 9,926,369 19,225,805 8,558,540 4,373,236 4,442,959 46,526,909 67,639,483 Bond Referendum 20,064,000 11,386,000 11,386,000 Deferred Maintenance Projects 1,195,800 1,200,300 1,200,300 44,303,065 Orange County Schools 3,367,615 3,375,769 3,039,505 3,105,240 3,172,936 3,242,659 15,936,109 17,334,918 Article 46 Sales Tax Proceeds 810,801 777,228 808,317 840,650 874,276 909,247 4,209,718 5,121,766 Debt Financing-Older Facilities 398,600 400,100 400,100 DebtFinancing-Schoollmprovements 1,599,236 1,637,359 1,670,106 1,703,508 1,737,578 1,772,330 8,520,881 9,407,742 Lottery Proceeds 558,978 561,082 561,082 561,082 561,082 561,082 2,805,410 2,805,410 Recurring Capital Items 1,195,800 1,200,300 1,200,300 1,200,300 1,200,300 1,200,300 6,001,500 6,001,500 Supplemental Deferred Maintenance Program 4,150,000 3,600,000 4,253,000 12,003,000 Durham Tech Community College 1,000,000 14,000,000 11,547,911 26,547,911 Grand Total 34,512,606 21,387,313 51,504,864 32,759,070 10,930,357 11,104,620 127,686,224 151,837,015 Revenues/Funding Sources Article 46 Sales Tax Proceeds 2,034,120 1,942,584 2,020,288 2,101,099 2,185,143 2,272,549 10,521,663 12,801,213 Debt Financing-Bond Proceeds 20,064,000 13,308,000 13,308,000 Debt Financing-Durham Tech 1,000,000 14,000,000 11,547,911 26,547,911 Debt Financing-Older Facilities 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 DebtFinancing-Schoollmprovements 7,012,132 13,042,375 20,774,222 17,707,706 7,342,860 7,429,717 66,296,880 132,024,032 From Capital Reserve Funds 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 Lottery Proceeds 1,402,354 1,402,354 1,402,354 1,402,354 1,402,354 1,402,354 7,011,770 7,011,770 Grand Total 34,512,606 21,387,313 51,504,864 32,759,070 10,930,357 11,104,620 127,686,224 151,837,015 143 Development . . . Status Project Name Address/Location of Units' Approva 12 Date Hillsborough Complete Waterstone Estates Cates Creek Parkway 139 2015 Complete Waterstone Terraces College Park Road 114 2015 Complete Crescent Magnolia (Waterstone) 265 College Park Road 24 2017 Under Construction Forest Ridge 810 US Highway 70 East 235 2009 Under Construction Harmony at Waterstone Waterstone Drive 200 2015 Under Construction Collins Ridge 258 Orange Grove Road 950 2016 Under Construction Fiori Hill 734 US Highway 70 East 46 2015 Total Units-Hillsborough 1,708 Mebane Under Construction The Meadows NE corner of Ben Wilson Road and Bowman Road 167 2016 Under Construction Northeast Village Lebanon Road 169 2017 Approved The Townes of Oakwood Square 906 Oakwood Street 88 2018 Approved Villas at Havenstone 1808 Saddle Club Road/Lebanon Road 43 2019 Approved Stagecoach Corner Stagecoach Road 35 2019 Proposed Bowman Village/Bowman Place NE corner of Rock Quarry Road and Bowman Road 177 2019 Proposed Tupelo Junction 1818 Saddle Club Road 181 2020 Total Units- Mebane 860 Chapel Hill Complete Carraway Village 3200 Eubanks Road 400 2014 Complete Greenfield Place and Commons 150 Formosa Lane 149 2016 Complete Azalea Estates Gracious Retirement Living 700 N. Estes Drive 152 2017 Under Construction Grove Park Apartments 425 Hillsborough Street 346 2017 Under Construction Hillstone 1736 Fordham Boulevard 328 2017 Under Construction Fordham Boulevard Apartments 1300 Fordham Boulevard 272 2017 Under Construction Glen Lennox Link Apartments Fordham Boulevard and Brandon Road 215 2017 Approved Independent Senior Housing 2217 Homestead Road 198 2019 Proposed 2200 Homestead Road 2200 Homestead Road 146 2018 Proposed Park Apartments 1250 Ephesus Church Road 312 2019 Proposed Weavers Grove 7516 Sunrise Road 243 2019 Proposed Flats 605 Martin Luther King Boulevard 200 2021 Total Units—Chapel Hill 2,961 -fray Proposed Lloyd Farms 706 Old Fayetteville Road 220 2018 TotalOrange County5,749 'Approximate number of units based on available site plans,application submittals,and Orange County Geographic information System(GIS) ' Reflects key stages of the Jurisdiction's development review process(concept plan,rezoning,special use permit,conditional use permit,site plan,etc.)related to the proposed project OR A N G E C O U N T Y , N Recent and Future Developments 144 - Caswell County Person Counte 4 `574 66 I 7 n District 2 4Mebane 6 4 70 Hillsboroughr 'OA n _ 70 X51 Chapel Hill 85 Carrboro �a 15 501 0 Current BOCC Districts ® City Limits District 1 ETJ Number of Units ` f G f1-99 Q 100-199 1 in=3 miles 0ORANGE 2d9-299 �' f CflUNTl' 0 3 Miles X300 Planning and Inspections Department{6C} 110 311212021 n:W4iS WorkspacelProjectslVotinp RedistrictinFIRedistiictinpWnrk 0onp tojitRrview ncw.aprk{Recent and FLAW 0 Ucvelopments . E C0UNTY , N 145 Recent and Future Developments (Hillsborough) `?Pj a i _ CD 7(J VVES Hillsbvrvu.pop h w 70A i 8, OAKDALE D � � a LU 1° 4 QIP .a a a 0 a • Z Sri M City Limits 00 ETJ Number of UnitsRID pA415 Q 0-99 0 100-199 t N 1 in-0.5 miles U ON RA 0 200-299 RAGE � Mile COUNTY o ®.5 (r1 �30Q Planning and Inspections D rtment(ee) '�/ 3115)2021 Voting Redistrirtin&edistricting,Work Group 2o)s',Review�o2i.aprxWcent and k uture t3cvelnprnents(V°lillstwough) C.. 0UNTY , 146 Recent and Future Developments (Mebane) f ILTHEMR.di � G _ ._ M.W.I a W.T.Ta i I ..- LEBANON,RE) l 1 � r A 4� I � f Y _ 1 Alamance County j U i i i� N�ebane fi 70 i _ --- = i Rq WEST RD So�NMP Orange County Boundary f 0 City Limits l 4F� ETJ Number of Units � i in X0.5 miles v'r aR nnne D 0-99 N�g4�� couivTY o o. Planning and Inspections Department(13 Q 100-199 j 311512021 Voting Redistrirting�Redistricting,Work Group 1o2iSReview�u)i-aprx}RN ent and Fuhu e Developments(Mebane) ORANGE COU N T Y , N Recent and Future Developments (Chapel Hill and Carrbldfa) r District 2 w WHITFIEQ)Rp SU&'9NK5 RE) A0 c WEAVER DAIRY RD District 1 2200 Homestead Roa �0 �h+C1�e� fl�ll U O _ 099M - $� Greenfield Place and Commons NaMF_sT�P� a S� N E'�'STES DR �+ EPHESUS 54 15 �d M 501 pr VM ST �0 .. i .. 4- �� � ��Mig1N S� FL4LEIGH Rp Current BOCC Districts 54 Orange County Boundary City Limits J�, G ETJ Planned Development Number of Units Q 100-199 15 IN t in=0.75 miles 0 200-299 V c�cauN rY ji Miles hal o 0.75 10 �300 � Planning and Inspections Department{8C} 3h5);=' -Z.I 1 i^ -x..:.111.iI gWork Group lG)TkReuiewlort.aii i XkReuent and flit lire DOW I opmunts([.hapcl Hill arui iaribora] 148 County Election Methods Updated November 2018 County Election Methods County No. of Election Combined Terms of Mgr. Footnotes Comms. Method Description Office Title Alamance 5 al 4S Manager Alexander 5 al 4S Manager Alleghany 5 al 4S Manager Anson 7 d 4S Manager Ashe 5 al 2/4S Manager Avery 5 al 2/4S Manager Beaufort 7 1 4S Manager 1 Bertie 5 dal 4S Manager Bladen 9 m 6d; 3al; I 4S Manager 2 Brunswick 5 dal 4S Manager Buncombe 7 cda 6d; 1 al 4 Manager 3 Burke 5 al 4S Manager Cabarrus 5 al 4S Manager Caldwell 5 al 4S Manager Camden 5 dal 3d; 2al 4S Manager Carteret 7 dal 4S Manager Caswell 7 cda 5d, 2al 4S Manager Catawba 5 al 4S Manager Chatham 5 dal 4S Manager Cherokee 5 dal 4 Manager Chowan 7 cda 6d; 1 al 4S Manager 4 Clay 5 al 4 Manager Cleveland 5 al 4S Manager Columbus 7 d 4S Manager 149 Craven 7 d 4 Manager 5 Cumberland 7 cda 5d; 2al 4S Manager Currituck 7 cdal 2al; 5dal 4S Manager Dare 7 dal 4S Manager Davidson 7 al 4S Manager Davie 5 al 4S Manager Duplin 5 d 4S Manager Durham 5 al 4 Manager Edgecombe 7 d 4S Manager Forsyth 7 cda 1 al; 6d 4S Manager 6 Franklin 7 cda 2al; 5d 4S Manager Gaston 7 dal 4S Manager Gates 5 dal 4S Manager Graham 5 al 4 Manager 7 Granville 7 d 4S Manager Greene 5 al 4S Manager Guilford 9 cda 8d; 1 a 4S Manager Halifax 6 cda 3d; 3al 4S Manager Harnett 5 d 4S Manager Haywood 5 al 4S Manager Henderson 5 dal 4S Manager Hertford 5 dal 4S Manager Hoke 5 al 4S Manager Hyde 5 dal 4S Manager Iredell 5 al 2AS Manager Jackson 5 dal 4S Manager 3 Johnston 7 dal 4S Manager Jones 7 d 4 Manager 12 Lee 7 cda 3al; 4d 4S Manager Lenoir 7 cda 2al; 5d 4S Manager Lincoln 5 al 4S Manager Macon 5 dal 4S Manager Madison 5 al 4S Manager 150 Martin 5 1 4S Manager 8 McDowell 5 al 4S Manager Mecklenburg 9 cda 3al; 6d 2 Manager Mitchell 5 al 2/4S Manager Montgomery 5 cda 2al; 3d 4S Manager Moore 5 dal 4S Manager Nash 7 d 4S Manager New 5 al 4S Manager Hanover Northampton 5 al 4S Manager Onslow 7 al 4S Manager 11 Orange 7 cdal 2al; 5d 4S Manager Pamlico 7 cdal 2al; 5d 4S Manager Pasquotank 7 cdal 3al; 4d 4S Manager Pender 5 dal 4S Manager Perquimans 6 1 4S Manager 1 Person 5 al 4S Manager Pitt 9 d 4S Manager 9 Polk 5 al 2/4S Manager Randolph 5 dal 4S Manager Richmond 7 al 4S Manager Robeson 8 d 4S Manager Rockingham 5 al 4S Manager Rowan 5 al 4S Manager Rutherford 5 dal 4S Manager Sampson 5 d 4S Manager Scotland 7 dal 4S Manager Stanly 7 al 4S Manager Stokes 5 al 4S Manager Surry 5 dal I 4S Manager Swain 5 al 4 Manager 3 Transylvania 5 al 4S Manager Tyrrell 5 I/al 4S Manager 1051 Union 5 al 4S Manager Vance 7 d 4S Manager Wake 7 dal 4S Manager Warren 5 dal 4S Manager Washington 5 cda 4d; 1 al 4S Manager Watauga 5 dal 2/4S Manager Wayne 7 cda 1 al; 6d 4 Manager Wilkes 5 al 4S Manager Wilson 7 d 4 Manager Yadkin 5 al 2/4S Manager Yancey 5 al 2/4S Manager TABLE ABBREVIATIONS Election method and descriptions: al = All commissioners nominated and elected at large (pure at large). d = All commissioners nominated and elected by district (pure district). dal = Residence in district required, but nominated and elected at-large. I = Limited voting plan. cda = Combination of pure district and pure at large seats. cdal = Combination of pure at large seats with some seats requiring residency in districts, but still nominated/elected at large. S = If S appears beside length of term, means not all seats are up for election in the same year. TABLE FOOTNOTES 1. Limited voting system. Candidates file as a group for open seats and voters may vote for only 1 candidate. Both primary and general election results are determined by plurality. 2. Six members elected to numbered seats from 3 2-member districts; 3 at-large members elected concurrently. Primary result is determined by plurality, with each voter limited to 1 vote. 3. Chair elected separately. 4. Six members elected to numbered seats from 3 2-member districts for staggered 4-year terms; at-large member elected for 4-year term. 5. Two members nominated and elected by district; 5 nominated by district and elected at large across the 5 remaining districts. 6. One 2-member district; 1 4-member district; 1 at-large member. 7. Member elected with highest number of votes serves as chair. 8. Limited voting plan. One 2-member district; 1 3-member district. Voters in 2 member district may vote for only 1 candidate. Voters in 3-member district may vote for 2 candidates. 9. Six single-member districts; 3 consolidated districts formed by combining single-member districts. 10. Commissioners are elected at-large with a limited voting plan. Primaries are conducted on a partisan basis, with the top vote-getters in each party moving to the general election. 11. Voters in Onslow County approved referendum in 2016 to add two Board seats, to be elected in 2018, increasing the Board from 5 to 7 members. 12. Effective in 2018, the Jones County board increased from 5 to 7 members, elected by district. County Election Method (2o18) 152 Ashe Alleghany Sur Rackingharrs m �o�hd Gates ry Stakes Caswell) ;n — " Warre0 n 'h r' d •7 A�o�Hertfor &. d ,e •'p�f�c d IL Wilkes Yadklrr �, �o���i7 f Fors th " cqp r l �ffc Ob y Guilford n R c �� F Bertie � d°�s h �iof Caldwell Da €`) � �� m� mR sd�so o Alexander — rye o M a _ °o ,y !� J 84 v ti �o � a A Washington to 0. aP W Randolph Chatham y15°� ¢0 6u�c00be Catawba Rowan a sW air+ — toN Stanlrr,. ti Lincoln 01 rig eke Beaufort Graham/ o vienderson- Rutherford m� 0 �a�a '�o, " eb �° s G� e�0o Qt`�a Polk a Gaston 'h a y *b0 Cherokee Macon cg�tia ci a 2 m 4ea° o ��ca Clay C 0 4 JO 7 Union �ichh o-VC co o a~/$^�y a 4 n Gaetet fj p �0s Bladen Pender `a�`paQ .,L%o� AIII commissioners nominated and elected at large(pure at large) Brunswick z All commissioners nominated and elected by district(pure district) Combination of pure at large seats with some seats requiring residency in districts, but stillnominatedlelected at large Combination of pure district and pure at large seats Limited voting plan Limited voting plan.All commissioners nominated and elected at large (pure at large) Residence in district required,but nominated and elected at-large N 1 in=5o miles C11ANG1 Miles Six members elected to numbered seats from 3 2-member districts; 3 COUNTY o 50 at-large members electedconcurrently. Primary result is determined by See"County Election Methods"document Planning and Inspections Department{BC) plurality,with each voter limited to 1 vote for more detailed information. 31151202.1 153 Other Information Websites Referenced faircountiesnc.org — Developed by the State League of Women Voters. Orange County is not one of the "focus counties" http://www.ncacc.org/197/Election-Results — Compiled by NCACC — Provides county- by-county elections demographics (race, gender, and political party) for boards of commissioners for North Carolina's 100 counties. http://www.ncacc.org/195/County-Election-Methods — Compiled by NCACC — Provides county-by-county elections methods for North Carolina's 100 counties. Proposed Speakers to the BEAG Rebecca Tippett with UNC Demography Center Bob Joyce with the UNC School of Government (Spring 2001 Article Provided Separately) Preliminary Perspectives of Individual BEAG Members 154 1) At this time, what would you propose as the total Number of Seats on the Orange County Board of Commissioners? DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab— Either(a) six:three seats each for the two current districts, or(b) seven: only if we expand the number of districts to seven, or(c)five: only if we expand the number of districts to five. Jennifer Bremer—7, although 5 would also be ok. Jaaz Catterall—7 Lisa Hazirjian—7 or 9 Krishna Mondal—I propose seven as the total number of seats. Jonathan Weiler-7 DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins—7 Patrick Mulkey-7 Alicia Reid—9 1 would propose to increase the Number of Seats on the Orange County Board of Commissioners. It would effectively ensure all areas of the counties are exposed by increasing the Number of Seats. Jenn Sykes—7 is fine 2) Based on the number of seats noted in #1 above, how many would be At- Large? DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab—Zero Jennifer Bremer—Either 2 as at present, one from each part of the county, or none. I was persuaded by the argument that just having one would essentially give Chapel Hill an additional commissioner. Perhaps these should be residence districts (DAL), rather than pure at- large seats, with one from Chapel Hill/Carrboro and one from the rest of the county. Pitt has a two-level system sort of like that. I'm indifferent as to whether the nomination by sub-region should continue or not. Jaaz Catterall—0-1. While I'm not personally thrilled by the idea of at-large members, I would be open to considering one if public opinion ends up being largely in favor of having a say in electing both a member from their own district and a member for the county at large. This openness would be muted if the geographic distribution of favorability is skewed so that people in less populous areas preferred not to have any at-large seats. Lisa Hazirjian—See next response (#3 below) Krishna Mondal— None Jonathan Weiler-4 DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins—0 Patrick Mulkey-0 Alicia Reid—2 Jenn Sykes—None 155 3) Based on the number of seats noted in #1 above, how many would be elected by district? DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab—All of them would be district-elected. Jennifer Bremer—5, from single-member districts. Jaaz Catterall—6-7, same reasoning as above Lisa Hazirjian— I might be open to a 9 seat board with 7 single-seat districts and 2 at-large, or a 7 member board with 6 districts and 1 at-large, or a 7 members board that's all single- member districts. I'm truly undecided,though if I had to decide now it would be all single member districts—and I could be persuaded to go up to 9 seats,though I know some folks would rather avoid the extra cost of two more commissioners Krishna Mondal—All seven should be elected by district. Jonathan Weiler—3 DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins—All Patrick Mulkey-7 Alicia Reid—7 Jenn Sykes—All 4) For any district seats, would you propose candidates reside and be nominated in the primary by district, and then elected in the general election by all voters in the County? DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab— No Jennifer Bremer—No, I would prefer the pure single-member model for the 5 (or whatever) district seats, nominated and elected by voters in the district. Jaaz Catterall— No Lisa Hazirjian —Absolutely not Krishna Mondal— None of the district seats should have this system of election. Jonathan Weiler—No DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins— No Patrick Mulkey—No Alicia Reid— No...vote by district Jenn Sykes— No 156 5) For any district seats, would you propose candidates reside and be nominated in the primary by district, and then elected in the general election by only the voters in that same district? DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab—Yes Jennifer Bremer—Yes, I would favor the pure district model for the single-member districts seats. Jaaz Catterall—Yes Lisa Hazirjian— Empathetically yes Krishna Mondal— I would propose this system of election for all district seats. Jonathan Weiler—Yes DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins—Yes Patrick Mulkey—Yes Alicia Reid—Yes Jenn Sykes—Yes 6) Would a pure district format that resulted in each voter in the County only electing only one commissioner be acceptable? DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins—Yes Patrick Mulkey—Yes Alicia Reid— No Jenn Sykes—Yes - it would require redistricting but lead to a 4-3 split possibly, depending on how the lines are drawn and the growth in the unincorporated areas seems to go in the upcoming census DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab—Yes Jennifer Bremer—Yes, I would also find that acceptable. Jaaz Catterall—Yes Lisa Hazirjian—Absolutely Krishna Mondal —Yes,this system would be acceptable. Jonathan Weiler—No 157 7) Would a district format that, due to population numbers, resulted in four commissioners always being elected from within the city limits of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro be acceptable? DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins–Yes, no way around that if we do geographical districts Patrick Mulkey–It will depend on the legally defined numbers,just as it is now. Alicia Reid–No Jenn Sykes–Makes sense given population DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab–No Jennifer Bremer–Yes, although it appears that a lot of the growth may be outside the city limits. Jaaz Catterall–Yes,though very open to discussion on this—this makes sense mathematically, based on the population info we were given, but there are obvious and valid concerns about the impact this would have on the rest of the county. Lisa Hazirjian–Yes, given the realities of population distribution. Krishna Mondal–Yes,this would be acceptable. Jonathan Weiler–Yes 8) Would a district format that, due to population numbers, resulted in all of the Town of Hillsborough, the area immediately around Efland, and the area in Orange County near Mebane being located within the same district be acceptable? DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins–Not sure–would have to see the whole map. Patrick Mulkey–Yes, see number 7 Alicia Reid–No Jenn Sykes–No, and I don't see a situation where the numbers actually work out that way if you have 7 commissioners DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab– NO, I don't think so. Those regions might be better represented by their own separate districts. Jennifer Bremer–Yes,that would be acceptable to me. It's basically the 1-40 corridor, right? Jaaz Catterall– No, not unless the group members from District 2 found that acceptable Lisa Hazirjian–Yes, with the caveat that as a District One resident I strongly defer to folks who live in those areas. Krishna Mondal–Yes,this would be acceptable. Jonathan Weiler–Yes 158 9) Would a district format that resulted in voters in the unincorporated area south of Chapel Hill and Carrboro not being in the same district as voters within those towns be acceptable? DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins—Not sure—would have to see the whole map. Patrick Mulkey—Yes Alicia Reid—No Jenn Sykes—I don't see how in the world that can happen, but I can see them split between a CH and Carrboro district. DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab—Yes Jennifer Bremer—No, I think it would be better to have that area be kept together with CH and Carrboro, especially as it seems likely to become more densely developed (although it occurs to me that it would have been useful to have a presentation from the town planners for CH-Carrboro and maybe Hillsborough. We can anticipate more residential development along the 1-40 corridor, I think. Jaaz Catterall—Potentially,yes, if necessary for population distribution purposes Lisa Hazirjian— Potentially; where would those folks wind up? Also, for lack of a better place to mention this, in drawing district lines for single-member districts, I would love to see the extremely affluent areas bundled together and the much more affordable areas bundled together. It feels like that's something we can do to create a few districts where candidates without significant access to wealth can get elected. Krishna Mondal—Yes,this would be acceptable. Jonathan Weiler—Yes 159 10) Do you have any additional thoughts you would like to share about election alternatives that would require legislative action by the NC General Assembly even if we do not pursue them at this time? DISTRICT 2 Martha Jenkins—Single member districts would likely be approved by the General Assembly. Patrick Mulkey—Stay away from legislative action required. I don't see any elected officials at any level wanting to carry this football. Alicia Reid—Yes...A current Republican Legislator and Democratic Governor will change in the future and there will be difference in decision making in every area of government. Additional parties could arise and the future is unknown. Having alternatives and continual open-minds to change (such as this Board)will make sure communities and government work together. Jenn Sykes—I'd love rank choice voting but in no world would the GA let that happen. I can get the studies on the voter satisfaction on that if you want them at some point, but not politically viable right now. DISTRICT 1 Kathy Arab—We need more than two districts, especially with the large number of transient voters in our county. Permanent residents need to have their voices heard more fairly. Jennifer Bremer—Nah. County commission redistricting is complicated enough as it is. I think the current legislation provides enough alternatives to select from. I personally feel avoiding engaging with the legislature would be a good idea,given that they can't be trusted not to apply their own lens, shall we say. Jaaz Catterall—Not at this time Lisa Hazirjian—Yes,thank you for asking! I'm deeply concerned about access to wealth—or lack thereof —being a huge factor in "electability" right now. Creating smaller districts should mitigate that somewhat by lowering the number of households one would want to reach with paid mailers, yard signs, etc (big ticket campaign expenses), but the best fix would be to take fundraising out of county elections entirely through public financing. Also, should we wind up with multi-member districts, I'd love to see a deeper look at ranked-choice voting as an alternative to the current system. For me as a voter, I'd much rather rank candidates in multiseat races than have to decide whether to use all my votes and potentially help my second choice candidate beat my first choice candidate (with two seats available) or to cast only one vote to give the best chances to my top choice candidate (which I have done). Krishna Mondal—No Jonathan Weiler—(No Comments Submitted) 160 This is a summary of the Preliminary Perspectives of Individual BEAG Members questionnaire. Staff received responses from 10 BEAG members, but the total of responses noted may be greater than 10 since some Group members provided options/alternatives in some cases. Some of the members answers relied on caveats and the below assumed that the caveats were met. The below information was compiled from questionnaires completed by: Kathy Arab,Jennifer Bremer,Jaaz Catterall, Lisa Hazirjian, Krishna Mondal,Jonathan Weiler, Martha Jenkins, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, and Jenn Sykes. 1)At this time,what would you propose as the total Number of Seats on the Orange County Board of Commissioners? 5 Members 6 Members 7 Members 9 Members 2 1 9 2 2) Based on the number of seats noted in#1 above, how many would be At-Large? O Members 1 Member 2 Members 4 Members 7 2 3 1 3) Based on the number of seats noted in#1 above, how many would be elected by district? 3 Members 5 Members 6 Members 7 Members 1 2 3 8 4) For any district seats,would you propose candidates reside and be nominated in the primary by district, and then elected in the general election by all voters in the County? Yes No 0 10 5) For any district seats,would you propose candidates reside and be nominated in the primary by district, and then elected in the general election by only the voters in that same district? Yes No 10 0 6) Would a pure district format that resulted in each voter in the County only electing only one commissioner be acceptable? Yes No 8 2 7) Would a district format that, due to population numbers, resulted in four commissioners always being elected from within the city limits of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro be acceptable? Yes No No Answer 7 2 1 161 8) Would a district format that, due to population numbers, resulted in all of the Town of Hillsborough,the area immediately around Efland, and the area in Orange County near Mebane being located within the same district be acceptable? Yes No Not Sure 5 4 1 9) Would a district format that resulted in voters in the unincorporated area south of Chapel Hill and Carrboro not being in the same district as voters within those towns be acceptable? Yes No Not Sure No Answer 5 2 1 2 Information compiled from questionnaires completed by: Kathy Arab,Jennifer Bremer,Jaaz Catterall, Lisa Hazirjian, Krishna Mondal,Jonathan Weiler, Martha Jenkins, Patrick Mulkey, Alicia Reid, and Jenn Sykes. 162 DISCUSSION GUIDELINES FOR BOOC EAG MEETINGS (Attribution to Roger Schwarz) • TEST ASSUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES. By verifying assumptions or inferences, members can make informed decisions and nurture understanding. • SHARE ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION. This ensures that the group has a common base of information upon which to solve problems and achieve general commitment. • USE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AND AGREE ON WHAT IMPORTANT WORDS MEAN. This guideline generates observable data—people,places, things or events -that allows group members to determine independently whether the examples are valid and to agree on the meaning of words. • EXPLAIN REASONING AND INTENT. Members explain what leads them to make a comment, ask a question, or take an action so that listeners can respond, and both speakers and listeners can learn from each other. • FOCUS ON INTERESTS,NOT POSITIONS. Interests—needs, desires, and concerns - are criteria that may need to be met in order to solve a problem in a way that others can support. • COMBINE ADVOCACY AND CUROSITY. In curious inquiry, a question, often open- ended, is asked with the intent on learning, rather than conveying a point of view. • JOINTLY DESIGN NEXT STEPS AND WAYS TO TEST DISAGREEMENTS. Joint design takes into account the members' interests,relevant information, reasoning, and intent. Testing disagreements is seeing if there is a disagreement, and if so, discussing possible joint resolutions. • DISCUSS UNDISCUSSABLE ISSUES. Applying these ground rules, difficult issues, which are relevant but are perceived to possibly have negative consequences if raised, can be addressed. • USE DECISION-MAKING THAT GENERATES THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT NEEDED. The more members are able to make an informed choice, the more they are likely to be internally committed to a decision. • APPRECIATE AND TREAT ONE OTHER WITH COMPASSION Decision Guide for BEAG Approval and Disapproval of Actions 163 Items for Approval by Simple Maiority Vote of Members Present at the Meeting Roll Call at the Beginning of the Meeting for Establishing a Quorum Approval of Meeting Summaries from Previous Group Meetings Approval of a Motion to Excuse a Member from Voting on an item being considered Approval of a Motion to Adjourn a Group Meeting Items for Approval by Super-Majority Vote of Members Present at the Meeting All Others Actions For purposes of the BOCC Elections Advisory Group, a Super-Majority required to approve a motion consists of at least sixty(60)percent of Group members present at the meeting including at least two members from District 1 and at least two members from District 2 voting in support of the motion. Abstentions Any abstentions or lack of response will be considered as a vote in support of the motion on the floor. A vote in opposition to a motion being considered must be specifically voiced by a Group member. BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP 164 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FACILITATOR AND CO-CHAIRS Responsibilities of the Facilitator Responsibilities of the Co-Chairs 1) Lead/assist the Group in developing Ground Rules 1) Collaborate with the Facilitator and County staff for discussions. to develop and finalize the agendas for each 2) Lead/assist the Group in establishing Group meeting. parameters/thresholds for decision-making, i.e. a 2) On an alternating, meeting-by-meeting basis, simple majority, a supermajority, etc. the Co-Chairs shall call each meeting to order, 3) Lead/assist the Group in the process and election and adjourn each meeting, except in cases of Co-Chairs. where the designated Co-Chair is absent, arrives 4) Upon recognition by the designated Co-Chair, lead late to, or leaves early from, a Group meeting. the Group through discussion of all items on all 3) Ensure that draft minutes/meeting summaries meeting agendas, except the call to order, are developed for all Group meetings, review approval of minutes/meeting summaries and those draft documents prior to distribution to adjournment. Group members, and ensure review and 5) Develop draft minutes/meeting summaries for all approval by the Group. Group meetings, review those draft documents 4) Following the Call to Order and approval of any with Co-Chairs and staff prior to distribution to minutes/meeting summaries, recognize the Group members. Facilitator to lead the Group through discussion 6) In an orderly fashion, recognize Group members portions of all agenda items. wishing to speak on an agenda item or motion that 5) At the appropriate times during Group is being considered. discussions on agenda items, and in conjunction 7) Guide discussions and reference Ground Rules with the Facilitator, the designated Co-Chair where appropriate to assist the Group and should request a motion and a second on a individual Group members. potential Group decision/action. Following the 8) Assist Group members with identifying common motion and second, the designated Co-Chair interests, areas of uncertainty, items for further should recognize the Facilitator to guide any discussion, etc. discussion on the motion. Upon completion of 9) Remind, when appropriate, the Group of the discussion, the designated Co-Chair should BOCC's charge and deadline, and encourage restate the motion and call for a vote by Group members to work together collaboratively. members. Following the vote, the designated 10) In collaboration with the Co-Chairs,jointly agree to Co-Chair should announce the approval or and schedule special meetings in circumstances disapproval of the motion based on the decision- where the Group's normal meeting schedule does making parameters/thresholds previously not allow a majority of the Group members to established by the Group. schedule the special meeting. 6) Remind, when appropriate, the Group of the 11)In collaboration with the Co-Chairs, determine the BOCC's charge and deadline, and encourage format and location for any special meetings. members to work together collaboratively 12)Draft final report/recommendations/etc., distribute 7) In collaboration with the Facilitator, jointly agree for review and suggestions from all Group to and schedule special meetings in members, and collaborate with Co-Chairs to circumstances where the Group's normal finalize the materials. meeting schedule does not allow a majority of 13)Join with the Co-Chairs to present the Group's final the Group members to schedule the special reports/recommendations/etc. to the Board of meeting. Commissioners. 8) In collaboration with the Facilitator, determine 14) In the absence of both Co-Chairs, assume the the format and location for any special meetings. duties of the Co-Chairs, except as it relates to 9) Collaborate with the Facilitator to finalize the voting on any matters before the Group. Group's final reports/recommendations/etc. to the Board of Commissioners. 10)Join with the Facilitator to present the Group's final reports/recommendations/etc. to the Board of Commissioners. 11)Serve as the Spokespersons for the Group. 12) In the absence of the Facilitator, the designated Co-Chair will assume the duties of the Facilitator. 165 The Orange County BOCC Elections Advisory Group is seeking feedback from the community on how the Orange County Board of Commissioners are elected. This brief, anonymous survey will take less than five minutes to complete. This survey is intended for voting-age residents of Orange County, North Carolina. (EI Grupo Asesor de Elecciones de la BOCC del Condado de Orange busca retroalimentacion de la comunidad sobre como se elige la Junta de Comisionados del Condado de Orange (BOCC). Esta encuesta breve y anonima le Ilevara menos de cinco minutos para completar. Esta encuesta esta destinada a los residentes en edad de votar del Condado de Orange, Carolina del Norte.) 1. Do you live in Orange County, North Carolina? (�,Vive en el Condado de Orange, Carolina del Norte?) Yes/Si No/No 2. Which area of the county do you live in? (1. 6En que area del condado vive?) Carrboro Unincorporated northern part of the county/Parte norte no incorporada del condado Chapel Hill Unincorporated western part of the county/Parte oeste no Hillsborough 4_ incorporada del condado 10 Mebane 0 Unincorporated southern part of the county/Parte sur no incorporada del condado Unincorporated eastern part of the county/Parte este no incorporada del condado 3. How often do you vote? (6Con que frecuencia vota?) Always/Siempre Rarely/Casi nunca Usually/Generalmente Never/Nunca l Sometimes/A veces 4. In which of the following elections did you vote? Check all that apply. (6En cual de las siguientes elecciones voto? Marque todas las que correspondan.) 2020 General Election/Elecciones Generales del 2020 2020 Primary Election/Elecciones Primarias del 2020 2018 General Election/Elecciones Generales del 2018 ❑ 2018 Primary Election/Elecciones Primarias del 2018 ❑ All of the above/Todas las anteriores CINone of the above/Ninguna de las anteriores 1 166 5. Do you feel your voice is heard on the Board of County Commissioners? (,�Siente que se escucha su voz en la Junta de Comisionados del Condado?) Often/A menudo Sometimes/A veces Rarely/Casi nunca Never/Nunca 6. Have you ever had an interaction with a county commissioner in their capacity as an elected official? (6Ha tenido alguna vez interacci6n con un comisionado del condado en su calidad de funcionario electo?) p Yes/Si f No/No L) Don't know/can't remember(No se/no recuerdo) 7. Are you satisfied with the current method of electing County Commissioners? (6Esta satisfecho con el metodo actual de elecci6n de Comisionados del Condado?) } Yes/Si 7) No/No 0 Unsure/No estoy seguro 8. How would you prefer to elect county commissioners? (6C6mo preferirfa elegir a los comisionados del condado?) Single-member districts where voters in a district choose one representative for their district/Distritos uninominales donde los votantes de un distrito elijan un representante para su distrito Multi-member districts where voters in a district choose multiple representatives for their district/Distritos multinominales donde los votantes de un distrito elijan a varios representantes para su distrito At-large seats voted on by all voters in the county/Escanos no declarados votados por todos los votantes del condado } A combination of single-member districts and at-large/Una combinaci6n de miembros de distritos uninominales y no declarados } A combination of multi-member districts and at-large/Una combinaci6n de miembros de distritos multinominales y no declarados 0 Don't have an opinion/No tengo una opinion 9. Who should get to vote for a district representative? (6Quien deberfa ser capaz de votar por un representante de distrito?) 0 Only those who live in the district/S610 aquellos que viven en el distrito Everyone in the county/Todos en el condado Don't have an opinion/No tengo una opinion 2 167 10. Have you ever voted in an election for county commissioner and been surprised at who you were voting for? (6Ha votado alguna vez en una elecci6n para comisionado del condado y se ha sorprendido de por quien estaba votando?) Yes/Si No/No 11. Do you have any other comments to share? (6Tiene algun otro comentario para compartir?) 12. How long have you lived in Orange County? (6Hace cuanto vive en el Condado de Orange?) Less than 5 years/Menos de cinco anos 5-10 years/5-10 anos 10-20 years/10-20 anos More than 20 years/Mas de 20 anos 13. What is your race or ethnicity? (6Cual es su raza u origen etnico?) IJ Asian/Asiatico Black or African American/Negro o Afroamericano Hispanic or Latino/Hispano o Latino } Middle Eastern or North African/Del Medio Oriente o Africa del Norte Multiracial or Multiethnic/Multirracial o multietnico JNative American or Alaska Native/Nativo Americano o Nativo de Alaska Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander/Nativo Hawaiano u otro Isleno del Pacifico White/Blanco Prefer not to answer/Prefiero No Responder Another race or ethnicity, please describe below/Otro, por favor describa a continuaci6n: Self-describe below: 14. What is your age? (Otro, por favor describa a continuaci6n:) 18-24 45-54 25-34 55-64 35-44 65+ 3 168 15. Gender: How do you identify? (Genero: ,Como se identifica?) Man/Hombre Non-binary/No-Binario Woman/Mujer Prefer to self-describe, below/Prefiero autodescribirme a continuaci6n: Self-describe/autodescribirme: Survey Complete Thank you for taking our survey. The data will be presented to the Board of Commissioners at a future meeting. 4 169 Current Method At-large(no districts) True Election Districts Blended Districts Residency Districts District voters live in district District voters live in District voters live in Candidates live in district Only district voters district district Voters county-wide vote vote/nominate in primary District voter Only district voters for all candidates Voters vote county-wide in nominate/elect vote/nominate in primary Voters vote county-wide general election Candidates live in Voters vote county-wide in primary At-large seats included district in general election Voters vote county-wide in general election Method Constitutionally Allowed Method Statutorily Allowed Method is Proportional Method Offers Equity Method Offers Better Representation Method Offers Simplicity/Clarity Method Maximizes Voter Engagement Methods Offers Uniformity Total 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Rating Scale 0 to 5(the higher the number,the better the criteria matches the option) 170 Instructions to fill in the Decision Grid You will score each criteria, column A, for each election method, row 1, with a value from 0 (least) to 5 (very good). You can use a score multiple times for each criteria. For example if three of the criteria don't fit for an election method then you can give all three a score of 0. If you are using the excel spreadsheet the "Total" row should automatically add the values for each criteria for each election method. Election Method F. C E F F [u t' ff&5d IAt-large(mclIstricts) 7nieElierdan 6IstArls Wended Distrkts RieslderbrV Nstrkcts •pistricl votes hve in dastricl I •Dwritt voacr.lir in •bistrsrt voter;l ire in Candidatcs Irve in distrix • Only dISUICt voters district distriei •Voters county-vrade va e vote/norninateInprlrnary •DIArlctVOW OF1'Fdistrict voters for all candldates voters vote oounty-Wide In i nominate/elee4 vote}nominate in primary •Voters vote€,aunty-wide generalele;tlon •Candidates live in Voters valecounSysvlde inpornary At-large seatsladuded district in general election -Votersvoteeounty-wide i� In geaaeaal election Method C4rrr3Srkuriprcally Allowed Method 5tatutonly Allowkrd Method is Prop irllonal Method Offers Equity - Criteria Method offers Better - Re5w Seniati dii Method Off*" _ Simplicity{Clarity - Method Maxim aes Vpter Engag#rnvnt 1t7 Tual 0 0 6 0 0 11 Rankil 12 13 Elating Scare 0 to 5(Ilhe h-.gher the number,the better the criiieria rrimhes the optioal - 171 Current Method At-large(no districts) True Election Districts Blended Districts Residency Districts District voters live in district District voters live in District voters live in Candidates live in district Only district voters district district Voters county-wide vote vote/nominate in primary District voter Only district voters for all candidates Voters vote county-wide in nominate/elect vote/nominate in primary Voters vote county-wide general election Candidates live in Voters vote county-wide in primary At-large seats included district in general election Voters vote county-wide in general election Method Constitutionally 5 5 5 5 5 Method Statutorily 5 5 5 5 5 Allowed Method is Proportional 0 0 5 0 0 Method Offers Equity 0 5 5 0 0 Method Offers Better 0 0 5 0 0 Representation Method Offers 0 5 5 0 0 Simplicity/Clarity Method Maximizes 0 5 5 0 0 Voter Engagement Methods Offers 5 5 5 5 5 Uniformity Total 15 30 40 15 15 Rank Rating Scale 0 to 5 (the higher the number,the better the criteria matches the option) 172 Current Method At-large(no districts) True Election Districts Blended Districts Residency Districts District voters live in district District voters live in District voters live in Candidates live in district Only district voters district district Voters county-wide vote vote/nominate in primary District voter Only district voters for all candidates Voters vote county-wide in nominate/elect vote/nominate in primary Voters vote county-wide general election Candidates live in Voters vote county-wide in primary At-large seats included district in general election Voters vote county-wide in general election Method Constitutionally 5 5 5 5 5 Allowed Method Statutorily 5 3 5 5 5 Allowed Method is Proportional 2 1 5 3 2 Method Offers Equity 3 2 5 4 3 Method Offers Better 2 2 5 3 2 Representation Method Offers Simplicity/Clarity 2 4 5 4 5 Method Maximizes Voter Engagement 3 2 4 3 3 Methods Offers Uniformity 2 3 5 3 4 Total 24 22 39 30 29 Ranki 4 5 1 2 3 Rating Scale 0 to 5(the higher the number,the better the criteria matches the option) 173 Current Method At-large(no districts) True Election Districts lended Districts Residency Districts District voters live in district District voters live in District voters live in Candidates live in district Only district voters district district Voters county-wide vote vote/nominate in primary District voter Only district voters for all candidates Voters vote county-wide in nominate/elect vote/nominate in primary Voters vote county-wide general election Candidates live in Voters vote county-wide in primary At-large seats included district in general election Voters vote county-wide in general election Method Constitutionally 5 5 5 5 5 Allowed Method Statutorily Allowed 5 5 5 5 5 Method is Proportional 4 1 5 4 2 Method Offers Equity 3 4 2 2 2 Method Offers etter 3 2 4 2 1 Representation Method Offers Simplicity/ 1 5 5 4 4 Clarity Method Maximizes Voter Engagement 2 1 4 2 2 Methods Offers Uniformity 1 1 4 2 4 Total 23 23 30 24 21 Rank Rating Scale 0 to 5(the higher the number,the better the criteria matches the option) 1 174 Current Method At-large(no districts) True Election Districts Blended Districts Residency Districts District voters live in district District voters live in District voters live in Candidates live in district Only district voters district district Voters county-wide vote vote/nominate in primary District voter Only district voters for all candidates Voters vote county-wide in nominate/elect vote/nominate in primary Voters vote county-wide general election Candidates live in Voters vote county-wide in primary At-large seats included district in general election Voters vote county-wide in general election Method Constitutionally 5 5 5 5 5 Allowed Method Statutorily 5 5 5 5 5 Allowed Method is Proportional 3 2 4 3 2 Method Offers Equity 3 2 4 3 2 Method Offers Better 2 2 5 2 2 Representation Method Offers Simplicity/Clarity 0 5 5 0 4 Method Maximizes Voter Engagement 0 5 5 0 3 Methods Offers Uniformity 0 3 4 0 3 Total 18 29 37 18 26 Rank Rating Scale 0 to 5(the higher the number,the better the criteria matches the option) 175 Current Method At-large(no districts) True Election Districts Blended Districts Residency Districts District voters live in district District voters live in District voters live in Candidates live in district Only district voters district district Voters county-wide vote vote/nominate in primary District voter Only district voters for all candidates Voters vote county-wide in nominate/elect vote/nominate in primary Voters vote county-wide general election Candidates live in Voters vote county-wide in primary At-large seats included district in general election Voters vote county-wide in general election Method Constitutionally 5 5 5 5 5 Method Statutorily 5 5 5 5 5 Allowed Method is Proportional 0 0 5 3 3 Method Offers Equity 0 0 5 2 2 Method Offers Better 0 0 5 3 2 Representation Method Offers 0 0 5 0 1 Simplicity/Clarity Method Maximizes 0 0 5 3 3 Voter Engagement Methods Offers 0 0 5 2 Uniformity Total 10 10 40 23 21 Rank Rating Scale 0 to 5 (the higher the number,the better the criteria matches the option) 176 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA BEAG Community Survey Results June 24 , 2021 Background 177 • Survey was initially drafted by BERG subcommittee , updated and approved by full BERG . • Survey was open for two weeks • Shared with municipal partners and community groups who work with historically underserved communities • Shared via social media • Media coverage on WCHL , WHUP and Chapelboro - com =��... ORANGE COUNTY � More than 400 responses NORTH CAROLINA 178 Responses by day 100 80 60 40 20 oil 0 N, �,�t` ��i` '' ORANGE COUNTY 3 NORTH CAROLINA Survey results 19 • Carrboro — 9 . 9% • Chapel Hill — 23 .2% • Hillsborough — 27 .4% Mebane — 3 . 9% Unincorporated Northern — 15 . 0% Unincorporated Southern — 9 . 7% Unincorporated Eastern — 2 . 7% Unincorporated Western — 8 .2% ORANGE COUNTY 4 NORTH CAROLINA Survey results 180 Q3 How often du you vote? (6Cvn que' frecuencia vata?) Always/Siempr ad 'r"Z11rnent Sometim1`11 vec Rarely/Casi nunca Never/Nunca Oda 10% 20% 3&% 40% bD% 6D% 7D% 8D% 90% 1DD% ORANGE COUNTY 5 NORTH CAROLINA Survey results 181 5 Da you feel your voice is herd on the ward of County Commissioners? (6Siente que se escucha su voz en la Junta de Comisionados del Condado?) Often]A menudo Sometimes/ veces Rarely/Casi nunca Never/Nunca 10% 2D% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% $0% 90% 100% ORANGE COUNTY 6 NORTH CAROLINA Survey results 182 + 7 Are you satisfied with the current method of electing County Commissioners? ( ,Esta satisfecho con el m6todo actual de elecci6n de Comisionados del Condado?) Yesf s No]NoMWM Unsure/No estoysegura 0% 1D% 2&% 3D% 40% 50% 60h'"o 7D% 8D% 90100% ORANGE COUNTY 7 NORTH CAROLINA Survey results 183 Hove would you prefer to elect county commissioners? (6CO'mo preferina ele it a los comisionados del condado? Single-rnernbe &district.. Multi-member �r� district votin At-large Single-rnernbe &at-larg Multi-member& at-lar 5 t-1arg No opinion E ORANGE COUNTY 8 NORTH CAROLINA Survey results 184 Who should get to vote for a district representative? (6 uien deberia ser capaz de vatar par un representante de distrita? aistric voters on Everyo n e No opinion 10% 20% 30% 4D% 50% 6D% 70% 80% BD% 1(10+46 ORANGE COUNTY 9 NORTH CAROLINA Survey results 185 Q12 How lung have you lined in Orange County? (6Hace cuanto vine en el Cvndado de Orange"?) Less than years/Menos,. 5-1 years/5-10 ano 10-20 years/10-20.., Morethan 2f years/Mas de... 0% 10% 20% 30% 4D% 50% 60% 709'6 80% 90% 10046 ORANGE COUNTY 10 NORTH CAROLINA Survey results 186 Q13 What is your race or ethnicity? (GCuai es su raza u crigen etnicc?) AsianlAsiaticol Black or African... Hispanic or LatinoMispa... Middle Eastern or North... Multiracial o Multiethnic/. Native American or... Native Hawaiian or... White/Blanco Prefer not to answerlPrefi.. Another rac� or ethnicity.. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 9095 10095 ORANGE COUNTY 11 NORTH CAROLINA 187 Demographics • 80% of respondents have lived in county at least 10 years • 80% of respondents were 45 or older • 60% of respondents were female • 55% had an interaction with an elected official • 90% always vote ORANGE COUNTY 12 NORTH CAROLINA Chapel Hill -Carrboro 188 5 Do you feel your voice is heard on the Beard of County Commissioners? (LSiente que se escucha su voz en la Junta de Comisionados del Condado?) 4ften1A rnenudo Sometimes/A veces Rarely/Casi nunca Never/Nunca D% 10 2D% 3D% 40% 50% 6D% 70% 80% 9D% 10D% ORANGE COUNTY 13 NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough 189 5 Do you feel your voice is herd on the Board of County Commissioners? (6Siente que se escucha su voz en la Junta de Comisionados del Condado?) O ten/A menudo Sometimes/ veces Purely/Cali I nunca Never}Nunca 0% 1096 20% 30% 4D% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ORANGE COUNTY 14 NORTH CAROLINA Unincorporated 190 5 Do you feel your voice is heard on the Board of County Commissioners? (6Siente que se escucha su Voz en la Junta de Comisionados del Condado?) DftenM menudo Sometimes) veces Rarely)Casi nunca Never)Munca D% 10% 2D% 3D% 40% 50% 60% 7D% 80% 90% 10D% ORANGE COUNTY 15 NORTH CAROLINA Minority 191 5 Do you feel your voice is herd on the Board of County Commissioners? (LSiente que e escucha su voz en lar Junta de Comisionados del Condado? 4ften/A menudo Sometimes} veces Rarely4Casi nunca� Neuer/Nunca D% 10% 20% 30% 4D-% 5446 6D-% 7446 80% 9446 1D&% ORANGE COUNTY 16 NORTH CAROLINA White 192 5 Do you feel your voice is heard on the Board of County Commissioners? (6Siente que se escucha su voz en la Junta de Comisionados del Condado' ofxen/A menudo Sometimes/ veces Rarely/Casi nunca Never/N u n ca D% 10% 2a%a 30%a 4646 5D% 6D% 70% 80%u 90% 1Do% ORANGE COUNTY 17 NORTH CAROLINA Chapel Hill -Carrboro 193 Q7 Are you satisfied with the current method of electing County Commissioners? ( ,Esta satisfecho con el m6todo actual de elecciQn de Comisionados del Condado?) Yes/51 No/No Unsure o, estoy Segura D% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% &0% 70% 80% 90% 100% ORANGE COUNTY 18 NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough 194 7 Are you satisfied with the current method of electing County Commissioners? (6E to satisfecho con el me'todo actual de eleccio'n de Comisionados del ondado"?) Yes/s i rao;Na unsure,Nc estoy Segura 0?o- 10�r 20% 30% 4Mb 50% 60% 70Rk. 80% 90% 1100% ORANGE COUNTY 19 NORTH CAROLINA Unincorporated 195 7 Are you satisfied with the current method of electing County Commissioners? ( ,Esta satisfecho con el metodo actual de eleccian de Comisionados del Condado?) yrs No/No Unsure/Na est oysegur 0%% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 601ve 70% 80% 90100% ORANGE COUNTY 20 NORTH CAROLINA Minority 196 Q7 Are you satisfied with the current method of electing Counter Commissioners? (,Esta satisfecho con el metodo actual de eleccian de Comisionados del Condado?) Yes/S i No/No Unsure/N4 estoy segura. 0% 1GD/0 20% 3[}% 40% 50% 6D% 70% 80% 9D% 100% ORANGE COUNTY 21 NORTH CAROLINA White 197 7 Are you satisfied with the current method of electing County Commissioners? ( ,Esta satisfecho con el metodo actual de eleccion de Comisionados del Condado'?) Yes/si WNo Unsure/Na estoysegura ()% 10% 2 3D% 40DA. 5D% 60% 70% BD% 90% 100% ORANGE COUNTY 22 NORTH CAROLINA Chapel Hill -Carrboro 198 8 How would you prefer to elect county commissioners? (6 Omo preferina elegir a los comisionados del condado?) Single-rnernbe ft district., Multi-member district vatin At-large Single-m em" &at-larg hlulxi-rnern6er at-larg No opinion - 0% 10% 2D% 3046 40% 50% 60% 70% SD% 90% 1DM ORANGE COUNTY 23 NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough 199 Q8 Hain would you prefer to elect county commissioners? (6C6mo preferiria elegir a los comisionado del condado?) Single-rnernbe� district„ na ulti-rnernber& district ratin At-large Single-rnernbe= a at-larg I•'ulxi-rnernber at-larg No opinion I 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 6D% 70% BD% 9D% 10D% ORANGE COUNTY 24 NORTH CAROLINA Unincorporated 200 8 How would you prefer to elect county commissioners? (6CO'mo preferina elegir a los comisionados del condado? Single-rnernbe &district„ Multi-member district votin At-large Single-mern6er� at-large Multi-rnernber& at-larg No opinion U 0% 14}6 244''c+ 30% 40% 5D% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10D% ORANGE COUNTY 25 NORTH CAROLINA Minority 201 Q8 How would you prefer to elect counter commissioners? (6CO'mo preferiria elecgir a los comisionados del condado?) Single-membe &district„ Multi-member district = district votin At-large Single-member &at-large Multi-member& at-larg No opinion' 490 14Oi0 20% 3&% 4490 5490 60% 7D% 80% 9090 1DD% ORANGE COUNTY 26 NORTH CAROLINA White 202 Q8 How would you prefer to elect counter commissioners? (6amo preferina elegir a los comisionados del condado?) Single-rnembe &district.. Multi-member &� districtt votin At-large Single-rnern6e &at-larg Multi-rnern6er at-larg No opinion. D% 10% 2D% 30% 40% 50% 6D% 70% $04'o BD% 10D% ORANGE COUNTY 27 NORTH CAROLINA Chapel Hill -Carrboro 203 Who should got to roto for a district representative? 6Q-uien deberia ser capaz do votar por un roprosontanto do distrito'?) Distric voters onl Everyone No opinion 10% 24 3 40% 50% 6Dx6 70% 80% 90% 10D% ORANGE COUNTY 28 NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough 204 Who should get to Grote for a district representative? 6 ui n deheria ser c paz de votar por un representante de distrito?) ds tric on[ �.r - oters on[ As Everyone No opinion 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 9 100% ORANGE COUNTY 29 NORTH CAROLINA Unincorporated 205 Who should get to vote for a district representative? , uien deberia ser capaz capde votar por un represent me de districo? Distric voters on[ Everyone No opinion 10% 20% 30% 40 50% 600/b 7CDk 80Dio 90% 1010% ORANGE COUNTY 30 NORTH CAROLINA Minority 206 Q9 Who should got to vote for a district representative? 6 ui n doboria ser capaz do votar por un repreentante de ditrito? aistric voters on11 IL Everyone No opinion 1 U°ii`o- 20% 3Cr°Io 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ORANGE COUNTY 31 NORTH CAROLINA White 207 Q9 Who should get to vote for a district representative? (6Quie' n deberia ser capaz de votar por un representante de distrito?) Distri r voters on I Everyone m No opinion 1D% 201D/0 3M► b 4&% SD% 6Gb 7GDib 80% 90% 100% ORANGE COUNTY 32 NORTH CAROLINA BEAG Community Survey 208 Q1 Do you live in Orange County, North Carolina? (�,Vive en el Condado de Orange, Carolina del Norte?) Answered: 413 Skipped: 0 Yes/Si No/No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes/Si 99.52% 411 No/No 0.48% 2 TOTAL 413 1 / 16 BEAG Community Survey 209 Q2 Which area of the county do you live in? (1. 6En qu(§ area del condado vive?) Answered: 413 Skipped: 0 Carrboro Chapel Hill Hillsborough Mebane Unincorporated northern par... Unincorporate western part. Efland area Unincorporated southern par... Unincorporate eastern part. Northern Orange County White Cross area other(please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2 / 16 BEAG Community Survey 210 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Carrboro 9.93% 41 Chapel Hill 23.24% 96 Hillsborough 27.36% 113 Mebane 3.87% 16 Unincorporated northern part of the county/Parte norte no incorporada del condado 15.01% 62 Unincorporated western part of the county/Parte oeste no incorporada del condado 8.23% 34 Efland area 0.00% 0 Unincorporated southern part of the county/Parte sur no incorporada del condado 9.69% 40 Unincorporated eastern part of the county/Parte este no incorporada del condado 2.66% 11 Northern Orange County 0.00% 0 White Cross area 0.00% 0 Other(please specify) 0.00% 0 TOTAL 413 3/ 16 BEAG Community Survey 211 Q3 How often do you vote? ( Con que frecuencia vota?) Answered: 413 Skipped: 0 Always/Siemprn Usually/Genera ment Sometimes/A veces Rarely/Casi nunca Never/Nunca 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Always/Siempre 89.83% 371 Usually/Generalmente 7.75% 32 Sometimes/A veces 1.21% 5 Rarely/Casi nunca 0.73% 3 Never/Nunca 0.48% 2 TOTAL 413 4/ 16 BEAG Community Survey 212 Q4 In which of the following elections did you vote? Check all that apply. (�,En cual de las siguientes elecciones voto? Marque todas las que correspondan.) Answered: 412 Skipped: 1 None of the above/Ningun... 2020 Genera Election/Ele.. 2020 Primary Election/Ele... 2018 General Election/Ele.. 2018 Primar f Election/Ele.. J All of th above/Todas.. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES None of the above/Ninguna de las anteriores 0.97% 4 2020 General Election/Elecciones Generales del 2020 42.72% 176 2020 Primary Election/Elecciones Primarias del 2020 36.89% 152 2018 General Election/Elecciones Generales del 2018 38.11% 157 2018 Primary Election/Elecciones Primarias del 2018 31.55% 130 All of the above/Todas las anteriores 82.52% 340 Total Respondents: 412 5 / 16 BEAG Community Survey 213 Q5 Do you feel your voice is heard on the Board of County Commissioners? (6Siente que se escucha su voz en la Junta de Comisionados del Condado?) Answered: 413 Skipped: 0 Often/A menudo� Sometimes/A veces M M Rarely/Casi nunca Never/Nunca 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Often/A menudo 16.46% 68 Sometimes/A veces 37.29% 154 Rarely/Casi nunca 28.57% 118 Never/Nunca 17.68% 73 TOTAL 413 6/ 16 BEAG Community Survey 214 Q6 Have you ever had an interaction with a county commissioner in their capacity as an elected official? Q Ha tenido alguna vez interacci6n con un comisionado del condado en su calidad de funcionario electo?) Answered: 413 Skipped: 0 Yes/si No/No Don't know/can't... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes/Si 54.48% 225 No/No 41.65% 172 Don't know/can't remember(No s6/no recuerdo) 3.87% 16 TOTAL 413 7 / 16 BEAG Community Survey 215 Q7 Are you satisfied with the current method of electing County Commissioners? (,Esta satisfecho con el metodo actual de eleccion de Comisionados del Condado?) Answered: 380 Skipped: 33 Yes/JI No/No Unsure/No estoy seguro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes/Si 23.95% 91 No/No 41.05% 156 Unsure/No estoy seguro 35.00% 133 TOTAL 380 8/ 16 BEAG Community Survey 216 Q8 How would you prefer to elect county commissioners? (Como preferiria elegir a los comisionados del condado?) Answered: 380 Skipped: 33 Single-membe0 M districts wh.. Multi-membe� districts wh.. At-large seats voted on by... A combination of... A combinations of multi-mem... Don't have an opinion/No.. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Single-member districts where voters in a district choose one representative for their district/Distritos uninominales 30.79% 117 donde los votantes de un distrito elijan un representante para su distrito Multi-member districts where voters in a district choose multiple representatives for their district/Distritos 14.47% 55 multinominales donde los votantes de un distrito elijan a varios representantes para su distrito At-large seats voted on by all voters in the county/Escanos no declarados votados por todos los votantes del condado 10.79% 41 A combination of single-member districts and at-large/Una combinaci6n de miembros de distritos uninominales y no 18.95% 72 declarados A combination of multi-member districts and at-large/Una combinaci6n de miembros de distritos multinominales y no 15.26% 58 declarados Don't have an opinion/No tengo una opini6n 9.74% 37 TOTAL 380 9/ 16 BEAG Community Survey 217 Q9 Who should get to vote for a district representative? (�,Quien deberia ser capaz de votar por un representante de distrito?) Answered: 377 Skipped: 36 Only those wh live in the.. Everyone in the... Don't have an opinion/No... 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Only those who live in the district/S610 aquellos que viven en el distrito 80.37% 303 Everyone in the county/Todos en el condado 16.45% 62 Don't have an opinion/No tengo una opini6n 3.18% 12 TOTAL 377 10/ 16 BEAG Community Survey 218 Q10 Have you ever voted in an election for county commissioner and been surprised at who you were voting for? Q Ha votado alguna vez en una eleccion para comisionado del condado y se ha sorprendido de por quien estaba votando?) Answered: 380 Skipped: 33 Yes/si 7M No/No A 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes/Si 35.53% 135 No/No 64.47% 245 TOTAL 380 11 / 16 BEAG Community Survey 219 Qll Do you have any other comments to share? Q Tiene algun otro comentario para compartir?) Answered: 118 Skipped: 295 12 / 16 BEAG Community Survey 220 Q12 How long have you lived in Orange County? Q Hace cuanto vive en el Condado de Orange?) Answered: 377 Skipped: 36 Less than 5 years/Menos.. 5-1 years/5-10 ano 10-20 years/10-20... More than 2 years/Mas de... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Less than 5 years/Menos de cinco anos 11.67% 44 5-10 years/5-10 anos 7.96% 30 10-20 years/10-20 anos 22.55% 85 More than 20 years/Mas de 20 anos 57.82% 218 TOTAL 377 13 / 16 BEAG Community Survey 221 Q13 What is your race or ethnicity? (6Cual es su raza u origen etnico?) Answered: 377 Skipped: 36 Asian/Asiaticol Black or African... Hispanic or Latino/Hispa... Middle Eastern or North... Multiracial or Multiethnic/.... Native American or... Native Hawaiian or... White/Blanco Prefer not to answer/Prefi... Another rac � or ethnicity.. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Asian/Asiatico 2.12% 8 Black or African American/Negro o Afroamericano 3.98% 15 Hispanic or Latino/Hispano o Latino 2.92% 11 Middle Eastern or North African/Del Medio Oriente o Africa del Norte 0.00% 0 Multiracial or Multiethnic/Multirracial o multi6tnico 2.12% 8 Native American or Alaska Native/Nativo Americano o Nativo de Alaska 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander/Nativo Hawaiano u otro Isleno del Pacifico 0.00% 0 White/Blanco 69.76% 263 Prefer not to answer/Prefiero No Responder 17.51% 66 Another race or ethnicity, please describe below/Otro, por favor describa a continuaci6n: 1.59% 6 TOTAL 377 14/ 16 BEAG Community Survey 222 Q14 What is your age? (Otro, por favor describa a continuacion:) Answered: 377 Skipped: 36 13-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 18-24 1.86% 7 25-34 6.10% 23 35-44 12.20% 46 45-54 20.42% 77 55-64 24.93% 94 65+ 34.48% 130 TOTAL 377 15 / 16 BEAG Community Survey 223 Q15 Gender: How do you identify? (Genero: 6Como se identifica?) Answered: 377 Skipped: 36 Man/Hombre Non-binary/No-B inario Woman/Mujer Ir Prefer to self-describ... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Man/Hombre 36.87% 139 Non-binary/No-Binario 0.80% 3 Woman/Mujer 59.68% 225 Prefer to self-describe, below/Prefiero autodescribirme a continuaci6n: 2.65% 10 TOTAL 377 16/ 16 BEAG Community Survey 224 Q11 Do you have any other comments to share? Q Tiene algun otro comentario para compartir?) Answered: 118 Skipped: 295 # RESPONSES DATE 1 Chapel Hill/Carrboro too heavily represented. Northern part of County often able to be 6/22/202110:25 PM disregarded by the numbers from CH/C 2 Thank you. 6/22/20215:24 PM 3 1) 1 am surprised to see new projects with poor implementation 6/22/20215:19 PM 4 Questionaire could use historical context. Question 9 should differentiate primary and general 6/22/20213:38 PM elections, as in current system. 5 1 voted for Joe 6/22/20213:25 PM 6 Would love to have more conservative representatives in Orange Co. 6/22/20213:13 PM 7 Penny Rich should be appointed to Mark Dorosin's seat. 6/22/20211:49 PM 8 the"county" is over-represented, chapel hill and carrboro are under-represented 6/22/2021 1:31 PM 9 1 like the at large and bigger area districts because it makes the commissioners want to 6/22/202112:20 PM represent the ENTIRE county-not just a small area of it. It helps with collaboration 10 nO 6/22/202112:11 PM 11 Think creatively. Be open to election methods, such as methods for achieving proportional 6/22/202111:28 AM representation, that may require approval from the legislature. Be mindful of previous research the county has done on this topic. Thanks for your service! 12 There currently is no representation for northern/central Orange County 6/22/202110:50 AM 13 None 6/22/202110:48 AM 14 1 live near Hillsborough but not in city limits. I see Chapel Hill, Hillsborough& Carrboro as 6/22/202110:36 AM basically running the county. The outlying areas are underrepresented & candidates are always Democrats. I am Republican but registered as unaffiliated because I need to have some say in elections. 15 The northern part of the county is disenfranchised by the existing system. 6/22/20217:39 AM 16 This area is wired for the left. 6/21/20215:18 PM 17 Seems all of this depends on truthful information about candidates, and citizens like me 6/21/20213:13 PM knowing an accurate place to learn that information. Truthfulness and good results on basic common-sense things can begin good momentum. 18 Voter ID must be show!! Have yo use ID for everything except voting. A bit messed up. 6/21/20211:39 PM 19 Northern Orange County is overwhelmingly underrepresented. most if our views are very 6/21/20219:09 AM different from Chapel Hill and our views are ignored. 20 Ensure no gerrymander. Any district lines must be drawn by impartial non-political 6/20/20213:00 PM commissions. 21 Let's have elections that are fair and square. Not set up. 6/20/202110:52 AM 22 In Chapel Hill there is rarely a non democrat running so I feel like it is a waste of time to go 6/19/20214:04 PM vote in secondary election. 23 Keep the current method of electing commissioners. 6/19/20213:35 PM 24 Heed the old saying: "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." 6/19/20212:47 PM 1 /6 BEAG Community Survey 225 25 We need non communist candidates to run. 6/19/202111:20 AM 26 we should require voter ID 6/19/20219:48 AM 27 No one is accounted for there actions,the countymake decision that no one agrees with being 6/19/20219:36 AM nice but throw them all out they dont speak for ME 28 Send me moresurvays if you have any. Thank you 6/19/20219:18 AM 29 More publicity needs to occur for this post. 6/19/20217:38 AM 30 A conservative voice on bocc 6/19/20216:51 AM 31 Instead of aspring to divide the county into rednecks versus the rich whities down south, why 6/18/20218:33 PM don't you try having disticts for some of the voices that are actually missing. Let's have some seats dedicated to renters, students, and young people-then you might start actually representing their interests instead of just the wealthy homeowners who control the local political process and actively push everyone who's not a boomer or a helicopter mom out of the conversation. 32 Geographic diversity is among the shittiest kinds of diversity you could be aspiring to. Try 6/18/20218:27 PM harder 33 Question#5 was odd. I would have liked an answer that reflected N/A. 6/18/20212:54 PM 34 1 think the current system ensures an all Democratic Party commission. Not everyone in the 6/18/202111:39 AM county is a far left democrat. Just like you didn't like Trump. I don't like being taxed and force fed every progressive policy. Moderation is desperately needed i this county. 35 Only American Citizens should be able to vote in any US Elections 6/18/202110:38 AM 36 We need equitable representation of rural areas of Orange County. We do not currently have 6/17/20212:02 PM anyone representing the conservative voice or the citizens of our rural county. 37 1 appreciate the county assessing ways to ensure all constituents have representation on the 6/17/20211:58 PM BOC, rather than the current system that effectively means CH/Carrboro elects our commissioners 38 1 just think we need to empower/involve citizens at the lowest level possible. Having a local 6/16/20214:47 PM representative seems like a good way to facilitate that. 39 NO 6/16/202110:48 AM 40 yes, not sure of question nimber 8. its not clear as to what is being asked and not sure if i 6/15/20219:44 PM answered what i would like to see. I think its greatly unfair that all of Orange county gets to vote for the District 2 person running in the general election. as we all knwo Orange county is 80+% democrat in southern Orange therefore whoever wins the dem. primary is a lock to win the general election. So any other party beside a dem has no chance of winning the general election the way it si now. totally unfair. most other counties or cities have distict only voting 41 We need adequate representation for county residents as well as Chapel Hill and Carrboro city. 6/15/20219:22 PM The needs/wants are often different and I feel like county residents aren't adequately represented. 42 BOCC do not listen or comment to people who speak at the meetings... 6/15/20217:28 PM 43 For qiestion 8/9, would prefer multi-member where one seat open to all voters and one seat in- 6/15/20213:57 PM district only, otherwise all at-large. 44 Not enough diverse voices of different thought on the County Commissioners 6/15/20213:11 PM 45 Would only support"only those who live in the district"for no. 9 if there were also at least 2 at- 6/15/20212:09 PM large members. 46 As a taxpayer in the City of Mebane as well as Orange County, I often feel as if I am in "no 6/15/202112:59 PM man's land" when it comes to representation. I sometimes feel we are ignored by the city as well as the county officials. Our area is growing very rapidly, so maybe that will change in the future. I always participate in elections and will continue to, but it would be nice to feel as if we had a bit more representation here.o man's land"when it comes to representation. It sometimes feels as if we are forgotten by the city as well as the county commissioners. 2 /6 BEAG Community Survey 226 However, I always have and will continue to participate in elections. Our area is growing very rapidly 47 Yes. County Commissioners should respond to comments and questions posed by the public. 6/15/202112:18 PM 48 If we are going to have districts, I really think they need to be the same size. 6/15/20219:34 AM 49 please implement ranked voting if there is multiple seats per district 6/15/20217:55 AM 50 Disappointed that this process was initiated because a commissioner almost lost his seat. 6/14/202110:51 PM Changing the process to at large reduces the likelihood that people of color will be elected to the commission. 51 The current method favors urban areas such as Chapel Hill, who get to have more districts. 6/14/202111:09 AM This imbalance silences the rural and smaller areas. We have a House of Representatives, but we need a Senate to balance it out, so to speak. I would also favor automatic voter registration, mail-in ballots, and ranked choice voting in local elections. Local election participation is extremely poor across the US, and making it easier to vote could help alleviate this issue. 52 1 talk to a lot of registered voters who are so discouraged by the political bias of Orange 6/13/20218:29 PM County's governance that they've given up hope of ever having fair representation. We need to make changes that will open the door for more diverse political perspectives to have a seat at the table. 53 The lack of representation of moderate views in this county is shocking. 6/13/202110:17 AM 54 The current district system is unfair, due to Chapel Hill votes in my Nothern Orange District. 6/13/20217:10 AM 55 It has for many years appeared that Chapel Hill/Carrboro is disproportionately represented on 6/12/20219:36 PM the BOCC. There should be 1 district for each unincorporated area of the county and 1 district for each municipality. Easy solution. Elections should also be non-partisan. 56 Chapel Hill controls Orange County and that needs to change. 6/12/20219:22 PM 57 Please consider implementing ranked choice voting! 6/12/20219:18 PM 58 1 think we all know that the majority of our county's residents live in carrboro/chapel hill. 6/12/20218:35 PM Because of this the"majority"makes decisions for our entire county.. it's like living in a country where urban folks make decisions for all of us! It's gotten worse in the past twenty years than it's ever been! I've noticed also that the board consists of people who know nothing of the heritage of our county, the hardworking country folks or the everyday small business owners on the outskirts of the county. The has to be a better way for ALL residents to feel represented in this county. And when we consider that unc-chapel hill has about 30,000 voters Abd most know NOTHING about our county„esp the needs of its residents, well, let's just say a lot of folks have given up on voting because they see no point in voting when the vote is for people who have nothing in common with their belief system. 59 Thank you for asking these questions! 6/12/20218:20 PM 60 Not at this time 6/12/20216:40 PM 61 The unincorporated areas need rep in west/south and north/east or something like that 6/12/20212:56 PM 62 Less toxicity please.... need more collaborative public servants, not anyone we just got rid of. 6/12/20211:06 PM 63 What do you mean by question 10? Surprised at who ran?Surprised by who won?Surprised by 6/12/20219:54 AM the choices who didn't feel like people from your area?Surprised that the person wanted to serve your area of the county?What information are you trying to gather with question 10? 64 What does question 10 even mean?? 6/11/202110:48 PM 65 There is not enough representation of District 2. With the population of District 2 growing so 6/11/20214:56 PM quickly, there needs to be another representative from District 2 and one less at-large member in order for there to be a more equitable representation of the population distribution in the county. 66 Given the population of Chapel Hill, it is critical to preserve dedicated representatives for the 6/11/20214:15 PM REST of the County. In a County-wide vote, Chapel Hill will disenfranchise everyone else. 67 I'm very familiar with how county government works, having been a county employee for over 6/11/20217:38 AM 3 /6 BEAG Community Survey 227 30 years, and a county agency director. However, I'm new to Orange County. So, my answers to the above are more specific to the previous county where i lived. 68 Make Commissioner a non-partisan office; vote in general only and use ranked-choice (3).. 6/10/20218:35 PM 69 We should put Penny Rich back in for Mark Dorosin. The election was so close; it makes so 6/10/20215:09 PM much sense. 70 Elections being decided in the primary seems problematic, and internal appointments to fill 6/10/20213:53 PM seats is not democratic. 71 My answer to Question 9 really depends on how a district is defined. 6/10/20211:16 PM 72 In your initial survey questions, your definitions of areas we live in were totally unclear; I have 6/10/202110:46 AM Chapel Hill address but not inside Chapel Hill/Carrboro, zip 27516; Is that unincorporated southern or eastern OC??Q10: what do you mean by "surprised"? It is hard to find information about people who are running for local offices (including commissioners). 73 There are 7 townships in Orange Co there should be 7 districts where candidate must be from 6/10/202110:05 AM that district. That would give representation to all districts and not just the southern part of our county. 74 The candidates do not get their information out very well. They should need to send 6/10/20219:21 AM statements of their positions to every voter in the county, for every county election. 75 District 2 should be divided into multiple districts with representatives, northern orange county, 6/10/20217:31 AM southern, Hillsborough region„ etc.. many in Northern OC, north of Hillsborough, do not feel there is equal representatives on the BOCC. s 76 Getting rid of partisan elections and voting for the best person for you would be great. 6/9/202111:08 PM 77 1 think the balance between city and more rural areas concentrates power into Chapel Hill. 6/9/202110:28 PM Example: the library is 30 minutes from my house. Durham has regional branches and several of them are closer for me because of the way the county has centralized that resource. Same for parks and recreation, the best fields, pools etc are very far from me. 78 We need better candidates. OC is a dumpster fire to use the 2021 lingo. Roads are a mess, 6/9/20219:12 PM traffic is a mess, crime rising, lack of internet for many, rising taxes and county budget"Just put it on credit" 79 None at this point 6/9/20216:01 PM 80 We need rural representation. Chapel hill &carrboro cannot decide for the whole county. 6/9/20214:01 PM People living in that district alone should vote 81 The county needs more representation from the northern half of the county. Chapel hill is a 6/9/20213:27 PM small portion of the county yet they dominate the board. The views of the northern residents are being ignored. 82 Landowners should have more control of our future than students. 6/9/20212:50 PM 83 People in the rural and unincorporated areas of the county (especially western and northern 6/9/20212:31 PM areas) basically have no voice and no representation in the BOCC. Carrboro and Chapel Hill interests largely control the entire county, which is unfair considering that these urban areas are vastly different from the rural areas. Personally, I would like to see Orange County split in to two counties -Orange and Northern Orange. A pipe dream I know, but this might solve the "no voice/no representation"issue better than changing how commissioners are elected. 84 None 6/9/20211:29 PM 85 1 moved here during the 2020 elections and had absentee voted in my former home state. 619/202112:55 PM 86 The overweight of Chapel Hill/Carrboro that's further driven by the at-large commissioners 6/9/202112:38 PM results really is unfair to residents of (especially)the unincorporated areas to the west and north. I say this as someone who usually agrees with the politics/policies and agendas of the board 87 The northern part of the county as well as other rural parts are sorely un-represented. County 6/9/202112:36 PM Commissioners should be willing to preserve the rural areas and help protect the farmers. Commissioners should have a feel for the whole county's needs rather than just the cities. Fair 4/6 BEAG Community Survey 228 representation! Commissioners should be LONG standing community members, not newbies who don't understand what the rural parts of the county need. 88 North side of Orange County should have same number of Commisoners as Chapel 6/9/202112:32 PM Hill/Carrboro. Allowing students who are just attending UNC for studies should not be allowed to vote. 89 It would be inequitable to not have districts or to allow everyone to vote for all districts. The 6/9/202112:31 PM bulk of the population is centered in specific areas, and the entire county needs a voice. 90 1 like multi-member districts, but it's not clear to me why Chapel Hill /Carrboro has more 6/9/202112:28 PM members than the rest of the county. 91 Cumulative voting (or another form of proportional representation) is a superior method. 6/9/2021 12:19 PM 92 require voter ID 6/9/202112:04 PM 93 Single party system is no good for the people 6/9/202111:48 AM 94 if it is only single member districts, there should be more of these in the southern part of the 6/9/202111:43 AM county. It seems representation should be more according to population than geography. 95 At the end of the day, we want a fair, nonpartisan, representative apportionment of 6/9/202111:36 AM Commissioner votes 96 It would be nice if Chapel Hill and Carrboro didn't also control Hillsborough and the rest of the 6/9/202110:53 AM county. 97 All 7 seats should be elected the same way. District 1 during a presidential election should 6/9/20219:46 AM have a district 1 seat A and seat B. Folks who want to campaign for a seat should need to declare seat A or B. This will eliminate a 2 seat election and everyone only voting for one seat. The fall off this past election was in the thousands. This should not happen. 98 Chapel Hill runs the county and that's wrong. All county residents should have a voice. 6/9/20219:33 AM 99 1 don't feel the need for a County Commissioner position to be partisan, it's a representation of 6/9/20219:21 AM the county not a bygone partisan political spectrum. Do away with the partisan application and have districts represented by individual community members. Many rural parts of the county feel as if they're voices aren't heard because of the current geographical makeup of the board members. 100 As a relatively new Orange County resident (1 year), I had to go back and look up the 2020 6/9/20219:20 AM General info to remember how the system worked. Incorporating background on the current system would have helped me respond to this survey more quickly and effectively. I also suspect that while many folks don't have opinions about single-member versus multi-member districts, questions about what kinds of values we want to prioritize in choosing representation might help reach clear answers as well. 101 Chapel Hill and Carrboro should be separate districts with staggered terms so voters only need 6/9/20219:17 AM to pick 1 candidate per election, even if multi-member districts are needed 102 Current system is unfair and unexplainable. 6/9/20219:01 AM 103 Make it nonpartisan. 6/9/20218:36 AM 104 Since viable media no longer exists in Orange County, it's difficult to follow OCBOC. About a 6/9/20217:22 AM year ago, I learned about signing up for email updates of agendas, etc. I don't trust social media(NextDoor)to provide balanced coverage&opinion. I suggest the county widely publicize the availability of email updates from the BOC (and other depth) and MAKE IT EASIER TO SIGN UP! The set-up now, or when I signed up a year ago, is super difficult. Thanks 105 Appoint a replacement. don't waste money on an election. 6/9/202112:02 AM 106 Do not reappoint canidates who have lost an election 6/8/20219:50 PM 107 1 have NEVER felt that I had any opportunity to be heard by the Orange Co. Commissioners. 6/8/20219:40 PM They have to have an agenda and don't want to even consider someone who has something else to say. Some of us feel tolerated until the commissioners can get on with THEIR agenda. Before coming here I was very active in the county and our Board of Supervisors. No chance here. 5 /6 BEAG Community Survey 229 108 we need county commissioners who will honor their oath of office to support and maintain the 6/8/20218:50 PM Constitution and laws of the United States of America 109 1 prefer to have non-partisan commissioners 6/8/20218:36 PM 110 The current primary system is unfair and unrepresentative. 6/8/20217:28 PM 111 Would like to see the county better manage overall development and infrastructure so we don't 6/8/20216:08 PM end up like parts of CA, Wash DC area, or Atlanta 112 more public candidate meetings 6/8/20214:50 PM 113 would support shift to proportional voting 6/8/20214:49 PM 114 Still a bad survey without background. You do not for example discuss a non-partisan or non 6/8/20214:37 PM primary elections. You do not address the reason for this "group"which seems whole undemocratic. You do not discuss why district 1 has 3 reps and district 2 has only 2. 1 see this whole survey as shallow and out of touch. 115 This is a seriously flawed survey. It assumes respondents understand the pros and cons of 6/8/20214:29 PM each election option. For those who already live and vote in District 1 (the majority of voters in OC), the current voting method has been generally satisfactory. It's the northern area of the county that is under represented due to the at-large seats. And yet, the majority of the respondents to this survey will most likely be from District 1 and will be satisified. Without information on how the survey will be sliced and diced, it feels like the results are assured of approving the current set up. 116 1 prefer 5 single member districts with 2 at-large members 6/8/20214:20 PM 117 The current system is working. 6/8/20214:16 PM 118 1 arrived in June 2018 and found that you have a system that works well. No need to alter it. 6/8/20214:13 PM 6/6